2812 lines
126 KiB
Plaintext
2812 lines
126 KiB
Plaintext
From: paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson)
|
|
Date: 23 Jul 93 12:26:24 GMT
|
|
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,sci.answers,news.answers
|
|
Subject: sci.skeptic FAQ: The Frequently Questioned Answers
|
|
|
|
Archive-name: skeptic-faq
|
|
Last-modified: 93/07/23
|
|
Version: @(#)skeptic-faq.text 1.11
|
|
|
|
The Frequently Questioned Answers
|
|
=================================
|
|
|
|
Introduction
|
|
============
|
|
|
|
This is the sci.skeptic FAQ. It is intended to provide a factual base
|
|
for most of the commonly discussed topics on sci.skeptic.
|
|
Unfortunately I don't have much time to do this in, and anyway a FAQ
|
|
should be the Distilled Wisdom of the Net rather than just My Arrogant
|
|
Opinion, so I invite submissions and let all the net experts out there
|
|
fill in the details. Submissions from any point of view and on any
|
|
sci.skeptic topic are welcomed, but please keep them short and to the
|
|
point. The ideal submission is a short summary with one or two
|
|
references to other literature. I have added comments in square
|
|
brackets where I think more information is particularly needed, but
|
|
don't let that stop you sending something else.
|
|
|
|
Many FAQs, including this one, are available on the archive site
|
|
rtfm.mit.edu in the directory pub/usenet/news.answers. The name under
|
|
which a FAQ is archived appears in the Archive-name line at the top of
|
|
the article. This FAQ is archived as skeptic-faq.
|
|
|
|
In general it is not very useful to criticise areas of the FAQ as "not
|
|
explaining it properly". If you want to see something changed then
|
|
please write a submission which explains it better. Grammar and
|
|
spelling corrections are always welcome though.
|
|
|
|
If you are reading this with a newsreader and want to follow up on
|
|
something, please copy the question to the subject line. This is more
|
|
informative than a reference to the entire FAQ.
|
|
|
|
Please mail submissions and comments to <paj@gec-mrc.co.uk>. If that
|
|
bounces, try <paj%uk.co.gec-mrc@ukc.ac.uk>, which explicitly routes
|
|
your email via the UK backbone.
|
|
|
|
This is in no way an "official" FAQ. I am a computer scientist by
|
|
profession and deeply skeptical of paranormal claims (although I may
|
|
include some pro-paranormal arguments here). If anyone else with a
|
|
less skeptical point of view wants to start a FAQ list, please feel
|
|
free. I certainly can't stop you.
|
|
|
|
Disclaimer: The opinions in this article are not necessarily those of
|
|
GEC.
|
|
|
|
Other Topics
|
|
============
|
|
|
|
Please send in contact addresses for local skeptics organisations not
|
|
listed in section 0.11.
|
|
|
|
Credits
|
|
=======
|
|
|
|
Thanks to all the people who have sent me submissions and comments.
|
|
There isn't enough room to thank everyone individually, but some of
|
|
the more major contributors are listed here:
|
|
|
|
York H. Dobyns <ydobyns@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> provided carbon 14
|
|
dating information, notes about current psi researchers and other
|
|
useful comments.
|
|
|
|
Dendrochronology information came from <whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.com>.
|
|
|
|
The questions "What are UFOs?" and "Are crop circles made by flying
|
|
saucers?" were answered by Chris Rutkowski <rutkows@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
|
|
|
|
Ken Shirriff <shirriff@sprite.Berkeley.EDU> provided information on
|
|
perpetual motion machines, Leidenfrost reference and the AIDS section.
|
|
|
|
Robert Sheaffer <sheaffer@netcom.com> sent information about Philip
|
|
Klass and UFO abductions.
|
|
|
|
The Ezekiel information comes from a posting by John Baskette
|
|
<jfb@draco.macsch.com>.
|
|
|
|
John Boyd <jboyd@uk.ac.ed> provided skeptical references on acupuncture.
|
|
|
|
Eric Raymond <esr@snark.thyrsus.com> contributed an explanation of the
|
|
"paranormalist" point of view for item 0.7, along with information on
|
|
acupuncture, the origin of life, and the CIA AIDS theory.
|
|
|
|
Kirlian photography information was paraphrased from an article by
|
|
Dave Palmer <dpalmer@csulb.edu>.
|
|
|
|
Cold reading information came from an article by Pope Charles
|
|
<popec@brewich.hou.tx.us>.
|
|
|
|
Todd Stark <tark@com.dec.ENET.dwovax> sent information on acupuncture
|
|
analgesia.
|
|
|
|
Geoff Lane <zzassgl@uk.ac.manchester-computing-centre.uts> provided
|
|
the article and references on Tunguska.
|
|
|
|
Contents
|
|
========
|
|
|
|
A `*' indicates a new or rewritten entry. A `+' indicates an altered
|
|
entry.
|
|
|
|
Background
|
|
----------
|
|
0.1: What is sci.skeptic for?
|
|
0.2: What is sci.skeptic not for?
|
|
0.3: What is CSICOP? Whats their address?
|
|
0.4: What is "Prometheus"?
|
|
0.5: Who are some prominent skeptics? +
|
|
0.6: Aren't all skeptics just closed-minded bigots?
|
|
0.6.1: Why are skeptics so keen to rubbish fringe ideas? *
|
|
0.6.2: How do we know Randi is honest? *
|
|
0.7: Aren't all paranormalists just woolly-minded fools?
|
|
0.7.1: Why don't skeptics challenge religions? *
|
|
0.8: What is a "conspiracy theory"?
|
|
0.9: What is "cold reading?"
|
|
0.10: Is there a list of logical fallacies?
|
|
0.11: What local skeptics organisations are there? *
|
|
|
|
The Scientific Method
|
|
---------------------
|
|
|
|
1.1: What is the scientific method?
|
|
1.2: What is the difference between a fact, a theory and a hypothesis? +
|
|
1.3: Can science ever really prove anything?
|
|
1.4: If scientific theories keep changing, where is the Truth?
|
|
1.5: What evidence is needed for an extraordinary claim?
|
|
1.6: What is Occam's Razor?
|
|
1.7: Galileo was persecuted, just like researchers into <X> today.
|
|
1.8: What is the "Experimenter effect".
|
|
1.9: How much fraud is there in science?
|
|
1.9.1: Did Mendel fudge his results?
|
|
|
|
Psychic Powers
|
|
--------------
|
|
|
|
2.1: Is Uri Geller for real?
|
|
2.2: I have had a psychic experience.
|
|
2.3: What is "sensory leakage"?
|
|
2.4: Who are the main psi researchers?
|
|
2.5: Does dowsing work?
|
|
2.6: Could psi be inhibited by the presence of skeptics?
|
|
2.7: Why don't the skeptics test the *real* psychics?
|
|
|
|
UFOs/Flying Saucers
|
|
-------------------
|
|
3.1 What are UFOs?
|
|
3.1.1: Are UFOs alien spacecraft?
|
|
3.1.2: Are UFOs natural phenomena?
|
|
3.1.3: But isn't it possible that aliens are visiting Earth?
|
|
3.2: Is it true that the US government has a crashed flying saucer?
|
|
(MJ-12)?
|
|
3.3: What is "channeling"?
|
|
3.4: How can we test a channeller?
|
|
3.5: I am in telepathic contact with the aliens.
|
|
3.6: Some bozo has just posted a load of "teachings" from a UFO. What
|
|
should I do?
|
|
3.7: Are crop circles made by flying saucers?
|
|
3.7.1: Are crop circles made by "vortices"?
|
|
3.7.2: Are crop circles made by hoaxers?
|
|
3.7.3: Are crop circles radioactive?
|
|
3.7.4: What about cellular changes in plants within crop circles?
|
|
3.8: Have people been abducted by UFOs?
|
|
3.9: What is causing the strange cattle deaths?
|
|
3.10: What is the face on Mars?
|
|
3.11: Did Ezekiel See a Flying Saucer?
|
|
3.12: What happened at Tunguska?
|
|
|
|
Faith Healing and Alternative Therapies
|
|
---------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
4.1: Isn't western medicine reductionistic and alternatives holistic?
|
|
4.2: What is a double-blind trial? What is a placebo?
|
|
4.3: Why should scientific criteria apply to alternative therapies?
|
|
4.4: What is homeopathy?
|
|
4.5: What is aromatherapy?
|
|
4.6: What is reflexology?
|
|
4.7: Does acupuncture work?
|
|
4.8: What about psychic surgery?
|
|
4.9: What is Crystal Healing?
|
|
4.10: Does religious healing work?
|
|
4.11: What harm does it do anyway?
|
|
|
|
Creation versus Evolution
|
|
-------------------------
|
|
|
|
5.1: Is the Bible evidence of anything?
|
|
5.2: Could the Universe have been created old?
|
|
5.3: What about Carbon-14 dating?
|
|
5.4: What is "dendrochronology"?
|
|
5.5: What is evolution? Where do I find out more?
|
|
5.6: "The second law of thermodynamics says...."
|
|
5.7: How could living organisms arise "by chance"?
|
|
5.8: But doesn't the human body seem to be well designed?
|
|
5.9: What about the thousands of scientists who have become Creationists?
|
|
5.10: Is the speed of light decreasing?
|
|
5.11: What about Velikovsky?
|
|
|
|
Fire-walking
|
|
-----------
|
|
|
|
6.1: Is fire-walking possible?
|
|
6.2: Can science explain fire-walking?
|
|
|
|
New Age
|
|
-------
|
|
|
|
7.1: What do New Agers believe?
|
|
7.2: What is the Gaia hypothesis?
|
|
7.3: Was Nostradamus a prophet? +
|
|
7.4: Does astrology work?
|
|
7.4.1: Could astrology work by gravity?
|
|
7.4.2: What is the `Mars Effect'?
|
|
7.5: What is Kirlian photography?
|
|
|
|
Strange Machines: Free Energy and Anti-Gravity
|
|
----------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
8.1: Why don't electrical perpetul motion machines work?
|
|
8.2: Why don't magnetic perpetual motion machines work?
|
|
8.3: Why don't mechanical perpetual motion machines work?
|
|
8.4: Magnets can levitate. Where is the energy from?
|
|
8.5: But its been patented!
|
|
8.6: The oil companies are conspiring to suppress my invention!
|
|
8.7: My machine gets its free energy from <X>
|
|
8.8: Can gyroscopes neutralise gravity?
|
|
8.9: My prototype gets lighter when I turn it on
|
|
|
|
AIDS
|
|
----
|
|
|
|
9.1: What about these theories on AIDS?
|
|
9.1.1: The Mainstream Theory
|
|
9.1.2: Strecker's CIA Theory
|
|
9.1.3: Duesberg's Risk-Group Theory
|
|
|
|
----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Background
|
|
==========
|
|
|
|
0.1: What is sci.skeptic for?
|
|
-----------------------------
|
|
|
|
[Did anyone save the Charter? PAJ]
|
|
|
|
Sci.skeptic is for those who are skeptical about claims of the
|
|
paranormal to meet with those who believe in the paranormal. In this
|
|
way the paranormalists can expose their ideas to scientific scrutiny,
|
|
and if there is anything in these ideas then the skeptics might learn
|
|
something.
|
|
|
|
However this is a very wide area, and some of the topics covered might
|
|
be better kept in their own newsgroups. In particular the evolution
|
|
vs. creation debate is best kept in talk.origins. General New Age
|
|
discussions belong in talk.religion.newage. Strange "Heard it on the
|
|
grapevine" stories belong on alt.folklore.urban, which discusses such
|
|
things as vanishing hitchhikers and the Everlasting Lightbulb
|
|
conspiracy. Serious conspiracy theories should be kept on
|
|
alt.conspiracy, and theories about the assassination of President
|
|
Kennedy should be kept on alt.conspiracy.jfk. CROSS-POSTING from
|
|
these groups is NOT APPRECIATED by the majority of sci.skeptic
|
|
readers.
|
|
|
|
The discussion of a topic in this FAQ is not an attempt to have the
|
|
final word on the subject. It is simply intended to answer a few
|
|
common questions and provide a basis for discussion of common topics.
|
|
|
|
0.2: What is sci.skeptic not for?
|
|
---------------------------------
|
|
|
|
The scope of sci.skeptic extends into any area where hard evidence can
|
|
be obtained, but does not extend into speculation. So religious
|
|
arguments about the existence of God are out of place here (take them
|
|
to alt.atheism or talk.religion.*). On the other hand discussion
|
|
about miracles is to be welcomed, since this is an issue where
|
|
evidence can be obtained.
|
|
|
|
Topics that have their own groups should be taken to the appropriate
|
|
group. See the previous answer for a partial list.
|
|
|
|
Also out of place are channelled messages from aliens. If your
|
|
channelled message contains testable facts then post those. Otherwise
|
|
we are simply not interested. Take it to alt.alien.visitors.
|
|
|
|
The posting of large articles (>200 lines) is not a way to persuade
|
|
people. See the section on "closed minded skeptics" below for some
|
|
reasons for this. I suggest you summarise the article and offer to
|
|
mail copies to anyone who is interested.
|
|
|
|
Sci.skeptic is not an abuse group. There is a regrettable tendency
|
|
for polite discussion here to degenerate into ad-hominem flames about
|
|
who said what to whom and what they meant. PLEASE DO NOT FLAME. You
|
|
won't convince anyone. Rather the opposite.
|
|
|
|
0.3: What is CSICOP? What is its address?
|
|
------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
CSICOP stands for the "Committee for the Scientific Investigation of
|
|
Claims Of the Paranormal". They publish a quarterly magazine called
|
|
"The Skeptical Inquirer". Their address is:
|
|
|
|
Skeptical Inquirer,
|
|
Box 703,
|
|
Buffalo, NY 14226-9973.
|
|
|
|
Tel. 716-636-1425 voice, 716-636-1733 fax.
|
|
|
|
Note that this is a new address.
|
|
|
|
0.4: What is "Prometheus"?
|
|
--------------------------
|
|
|
|
Prometheus Books is a publisher specialising in skeptical books.
|
|
Their address is:
|
|
|
|
Prometheus Books
|
|
700 Amherst Street
|
|
Buffalo, NY 14215-9918
|
|
|
|
0.5: Who are some prominent skeptics?
|
|
-------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
James "The Amazing" Randi is a professional stage magician who spends
|
|
much time and money debunking paranormal claims. He used to offer a
|
|
reward of $100,000 to anyone who can demonstrate paranormal powers
|
|
under controlled conditions, but has had to exhaust that fund to pay
|
|
legal expenses in the series of lawsuits that have been brought
|
|
against him since 1988. Currently, he can offer only a $10,000
|
|
promissory note. Anyone who wants to contribute to his defense can do
|
|
so via:
|
|
|
|
The James Randi Fund
|
|
c/o Robert Steiner, CPA
|
|
P.O. Box 659
|
|
El Cerrito, CA 94530
|
|
|
|
The lawsuit by Geller against Randi is still going on. There is a
|
|
mailing list for updates on the situation, which originates from the
|
|
account <geller-hotline@ssr.com>. [To subscribe, you should probably
|
|
send mail to <geller-hotline-request@ssr.com>.]
|
|
|
|
Martin Gardner is an author, mathematician and amateur stage magician
|
|
who has written several books dealing with paranormal phenomena,
|
|
including "Science: Good, Bad and Bogus" and "Fads and Fallacies in
|
|
the Name of Science".
|
|
|
|
Philip J. Klass retired after thirty-five years as a Senior Editor of
|
|
"Aviation Week and Space Technology" magazine, specializing in
|
|
avionics. He is a founding fellow of CSICOP, and was named a Fellow of
|
|
the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). He has
|
|
won numerous awards for his technical journalism. His principal books
|
|
are:
|
|
|
|
UFO Abductions, A Dangerous Game (Prometheus, 1988)
|
|
|
|
UFOs, The Public Deceived (Prometheus, 1983)
|
|
|
|
UFOs Explained (Random House, 1974)
|
|
|
|
Susan Blackmore holds a Ph.D in parapsychology, but in the course of her
|
|
Ph.D research she became increasingly disillusioned and is now highly
|
|
skeptical of paranormal claims.
|
|
|
|
Ray Hyman is a professor of psychology at the University of Oregon.
|
|
He is one of the major external, skeptical critics of parapsychology.
|
|
In 1986, he and parapsychologist Charles Honorton engaged in a
|
|
detailed exchange about Honorton's ganzfeld experiments and
|
|
statistical analysis of his results which was published in the Journal
|
|
of Parapsychology. A collection of Hyman's work may be found in his
|
|
book The Elusive Quarry: A Scientific Appraisal of Psychical Research,
|
|
1989, Prometheus. This includes "Proper Criticism", an influential
|
|
piece on how skeptics should engage in criticism, and "'Cold Reading':
|
|
How to Convince Strangers that You Know All About Them."
|
|
|
|
James Alcock is a professor of psychology at York University in
|
|
Toronto. He is the author of the books Parapsychology: Science
|
|
or Magic?, 1981, Pergamon, and Science and Supernature: A Critical
|
|
Appraisal of Parapsychology, 1990, Prometheus.
|
|
|
|
Joe Nickell is a former private investigator, a magician, and
|
|
an English instructor at the University of Kentucky. He is the
|
|
author of numerous books on paranormal subjects, including Inquest
|
|
on the Shroud of Turin, 1982, Prometheus. He specializes in
|
|
investigating individual cases in great detail, but has recently
|
|
done some more general work, critiquing crop circles, spontaneous
|
|
human combustion, and psychic detectives.
|
|
|
|
Isaac Asimov wrote a great deal on skeptical issues. He had a regular
|
|
column in _Fantasy and Science Fiction_, and collections of essays
|
|
from it have been published. Some of these essays are on assorted
|
|
crackpottery, like UFO's, Velikovsky, creationism, and so forth. They
|
|
have titles like "Worlds in Confusion" (Velikovsky), "Look Long upon a
|
|
Monkey" (creationism), "Armies of the Night" (crackpottery in
|
|
general), "The Rocketing Dutchmen" (UFO's), and so forth.; these are
|
|
usually on a rather general sort of level.
|
|
|
|
Marcello Truzzi was one of the founders of CSICOP, but broke away from
|
|
the organisation when it became to "dry" for him (see section 0.6.1 on
|
|
wet vs. dry skeptics). He now publishes the "Zetetic Inquirer" on an
|
|
occasional basis. He can be contacted at the Dept. of Sociology,
|
|
Eastern Michigan University, Ypsilanti, MI 48197, or at P.O. Box 1052,
|
|
Ann Arbor, MI 48106. [Does anyone know if this address is still good?
|
|
PAJ]
|
|
|
|
|
|
[Can someone supply me with potted biographies and publication lists
|
|
of these and other people? PAJ]
|
|
|
|
0.6: Aren't all skeptics just closed-minded bigots?
|
|
---------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
People who have failed to convince skeptics often say "Well all
|
|
skeptics are just closed-minded bigots who won't listen to me!". This
|
|
is not true. Skeptics pay close attention to the evidence. If you
|
|
have no evidence then you will get nowhere.
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately life is short. Most of us have better things to do than
|
|
investigate yet another bogus claim. Some paranormal topics,
|
|
especially psi research and UFOlogy, produce vast quantities of low
|
|
grade evidence. In the past people have investigated such evidence
|
|
carefully, but it always seems to evaporate when anyone looks at it
|
|
closely. Hence skeptics should be forgiven for not bothering to
|
|
investigate yet another piece of low grade evidence before rejecting
|
|
it.
|
|
|
|
Issac Asimov has suggested a triage process which divides scientific
|
|
claims into three groups: mundane, unusual and bullshit [my terms].
|
|
As an example, a claim that "I have 10kg of salt in my lab" is pretty
|
|
mundane. No-one would disbelieve me, but they wouldn't be very
|
|
interested. A claim that "I have 10kg of gold in my lab" would
|
|
probably result in mild disbelief and requests to have a look.
|
|
Finally a claim that "I have 10kg of Einsteinium in my lab" would be
|
|
greeted with cries of "Bullshit!".
|
|
|
|
Of course there are some who substitute flaming and rhetoric for
|
|
logical argument. We all lose our temper sometimes.
|
|
|
|
0.6.1: Why are skeptics so keen to rubbish fringe ideas?
|
|
--------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Skeptics vary on the attitude they take towards a new fringe idea,
|
|
varying from the "wet" to the "dry". The question of which attitude
|
|
is better is very much a live issue in the skeptical community. Here
|
|
is a brief summary of the two extremes:
|
|
|
|
DRY: There is no reason to treat these people seriously. Anyone with
|
|
half an ounce of sense can see that their ideas are completely
|
|
bogus. Time spent trying to "understand their ideas" and
|
|
"examine their evidence" beyond that necessary for debunking is
|
|
wasted time, and life is short. Furthermore, such behaviour
|
|
lends them respectibility. If we take them seriously, so will
|
|
other people. We must ridicule their ideas so that others will
|
|
see how silly they are. "One belly laugh is worth a thousand
|
|
syllogisms" (Martin Gardner).
|
|
|
|
WET: If we lay into these people without giving them a fair hearing
|
|
then we run two risks:
|
|
1: We might miss someone who is actually right. History contains
|
|
many examples.
|
|
2: We give them a weapon against us. Ad-hominem attacks and
|
|
sloppy logic bring us down to their level. If we are truly
|
|
the rational, scientific people we claim to be then we should
|
|
ask for their evidence, and then pronounce our considered
|
|
opinion of it.
|
|
|
|
The two extremes are perhaps personified by Martin Gardner (dry) and
|
|
Marcello Truzzi (wet). Note that no particular judgement is attached
|
|
to these terms. They are just handy labels.
|
|
|
|
People who read articles by dry skeptics often get the impression that
|
|
skeptics are as pig-headed as any fundamentalist or stage psychic. I
|
|
think that this is a valid criticism of some skeptics on the dry end.
|
|
However, an article which ridicules fringe beliefs may also contain
|
|
sound logic based on careful investigation. As always, you have to
|
|
read carefully, distinguish logic from rhetoric, and then make a
|
|
judgement.
|
|
|
|
0.6.2: How do we know Randi is honest?
|
|
--------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Randi has offered a large prize to anyone who can demonstrate
|
|
paranormal powers under controlled conditions. He also has a lot of
|
|
professional prestige tied up in his self-appointed role of psychic
|
|
debunker. This leads to allegations that if he ever did find a
|
|
genuine psychic then he would lie rather than lose so much money and
|
|
prestige.
|
|
|
|
When Randi tests psychic claims, he is always very careful to agree
|
|
with the claimant before the test exactly what the conditions will be.
|
|
The test will proceed only if both he and the claimant agree that this
|
|
will be a fair test of the claim. The conditions usually involve
|
|
video tapes and independant witnesses specifically to rule out
|
|
cheating by either side.
|
|
|
|
On one occasion Randi did agree that the claimant had passed the test.
|
|
Arthur G. Lintgen claimed an ability to identify LP records without
|
|
labels. Randi tested him, and found that he could in fact do this by
|
|
reading the patterns of loud and quiet in the groove. Lintgen did not
|
|
get Randi's reward because he had not demonstrated (or claimed) any
|
|
paranormal ability.
|
|
|
|
0.7: Aren't all paranormalists just woolly-minded fools?
|
|
--------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
[The following was contributed by Eric Raymond <esr@snark.thyrsus.com>]
|
|
|
|
Some `paranormalists' are people who fully agree with the scientific
|
|
method and scientific cosmology, but who are also trying to deal with
|
|
personal experiences or abilities that do not presently seem to fit
|
|
accepted scientific theory. The honest skeptic should recognize that
|
|
not all paranormalists are supernaturalists.
|
|
|
|
The honest skeptic should also recognize that some phenomena formerly
|
|
thought of as `paranormal' are now within the purview of science. The
|
|
classic example is meteorites; more recent ones include the remarkable
|
|
somatic-control abilities of advanced yogis, the physiological
|
|
mechanisms behind acupuncture and acupressure, and healing by laying
|
|
on of hands (now widely taught in mainstream nursing schools as
|
|
`therapeutic touch').
|
|
|
|
To assume uncritically that all paranormalists are simply flakes risks
|
|
foreclosing future advances of the same kind. And there may be some
|
|
doozies waiting in the wings. Recent experiments in computer analysis
|
|
of EEG/EMG patterns, for example, strongly suggest that mental
|
|
telepathy is at least *possible in principle* between speakers of the
|
|
same language (though it has not been demonstrated to occur).
|
|
|
|
Thus, the honest skeptic owes it to him/herself to remember that the
|
|
flakiness and credulity of *some* paranormalists does not imply the
|
|
insanity of *all*.
|
|
|
|
0.7.1: Why don't skeptics debunk religions?
|
|
-------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Skeptics aim to debunk false claims and silly theories by using the
|
|
*evidence*. The question of whether God exists is not one for which
|
|
evidence is available, and so skeptics tend to treat it as a private
|
|
matter. When someone claims to have evidence (such as a miraculous
|
|
healing) then skeptics are as ready to test this claim as they are any
|
|
other.
|
|
|
|
Most skeptics agree that it is perfectly possible to be a skeptic
|
|
about paranormal claims but still honestly believe in God. Martin
|
|
Gardner is a "dry" skeptic and one of the founders of CSICOP. He also
|
|
believes in a personal god and describes himself as a "philosophical
|
|
theist".
|
|
|
|
Most skeptics tend to take an "agnostic-atheist" attitude, assuming
|
|
that God does not exist until evidence to the contrary turns up.
|
|
|
|
If you are interested in organisations that oppose religion in general
|
|
then see the alt.atheism FAQ "Atheist Resources" for a list of atheist
|
|
and humanist organisations.
|
|
|
|
0.8: What is a Conspiracy Theory?
|
|
---------------------------------
|
|
|
|
There are two general categories of conspiracy theory: Grand and
|
|
Petty.
|
|
|
|
A Grand conspiracy theory is a belief that there is a large-scale
|
|
conspiracy by those in power to mislead and/or control the rest of the
|
|
world. Consider the following example:
|
|
|
|
There is a conspiracy amongst the computer programmers to
|
|
control the world. They are only allowing the public to have
|
|
simple machines, while they control the really powerful ones.
|
|
There is a computer in <city> they call "The Beast". It has
|
|
records about everyone. They use this information to
|
|
manipulate the politicians and businessmen who ostensibly rule
|
|
the world into doing their will. The Beast was prophesied in
|
|
the Book of Revelation.
|
|
|
|
Grand conspiracy theories divide the world into three groups. The
|
|
Conspirators, the Investigators, and the Dupes. Conspirators have a
|
|
vast secret. The Investigators have revealed parts of the conspiracy,
|
|
but much is still secret. Investigators are always in great danger of
|
|
being silenced by Conspirators. Dupes are just the rest of us. Often
|
|
the Conspirators show a mixture of incredible subtlety and stunning
|
|
stupidity.
|
|
|
|
Evidence produced by the Investigators is always either circumstantial
|
|
or evaporates when looked at carefully. The theories can never be
|
|
disproved, since any evidence to the contrary can be dismissed as
|
|
having been planted by the Conspirators. If you spend any time or
|
|
effort digging into the evidence produced by Investigators then you
|
|
will be labelled a Conspirator yourself. Of course, nothing a
|
|
Conspirator says can be believed.
|
|
|
|
Petty conspiracy theories are smaller than the Grand variety, and
|
|
sometimes turn out to be true. Watergate and "Arms for Hostages"
|
|
episodes both started life as Petty conspiracy theories. Just because
|
|
a theory involves a conspiracy does not make that theory false. The
|
|
main difference between Grand and Petty Conspiracy Theories is the
|
|
number of alleged conspirators. Grand Conspiracy Theories require
|
|
thousands or even millions.
|
|
|
|
[Since this FAQ was first posted I have heard that the Beast computer
|
|
is in Holland and that you can be saved by converting to a particular
|
|
cult. In addition the cult claims that every product bar code
|
|
includes three 6 digits as frame markers, hence 666, the number of the
|
|
beast. In fact this is not true, and even if it were it would not
|
|
fulfill the prophecy in Revelation. Meanwhile the cult members were
|
|
*meant* to rise up to heaven on 29/10/92 but very embarrassingly
|
|
didn't. The Korean founder was also discovered to have bought millions
|
|
of $ worth of stocks and bonds which didn't mature until 1995, and was
|
|
convicted of fraud.]
|
|
|
|
0.9: What is "cold reading"?
|
|
----------------------------
|
|
|
|
[From a posting by Pope Charles <popec@brewich.hou.tx.us>]
|
|
|
|
Cold reading is the technique of saying little general things and
|
|
watching a persons reactions. As one goes from very general to more
|
|
specific things, one notes the reaction and uses it as a giude ti find
|
|
out what to say. Also there are stock phrases that sound like
|
|
statements but are really questions. If these subtle questions evoke
|
|
answers, these answers are used as a basis for the next round of
|
|
statements.
|
|
|
|
Many people get involved in various things like this because of their
|
|
interest in the usual things, health, love, sex, ect. One can
|
|
develope a set of stock questions and statements that will elicit
|
|
positive responses fom 90% of your 'clients'.
|
|
|
|
In the hands of an expert, these simple techniques can be frightening
|
|
almost. But they are simple things. Of course a paintbrush and a
|
|
canvass are simple things too. It all depends on skill and talent for
|
|
these things.
|
|
|
|
One can learn these things coldbloodedly knowing them as the tricks
|
|
they are, or as probably most use them, learned at the feet of other
|
|
practitioners as it were by rote, and developed by practice and
|
|
adapted to the tastes of the reader and his or her sitters. As
|
|
skeptics have pointed out, it is the best cold readers that make the
|
|
best Tarot Readers, Astrologers, Palm Readers, or what have you.
|
|
|
|
If your library is lucky enough to have it, Check The Zetetic, (later
|
|
renamed Skeptical Inquirer), Vol. 1, #2 Summer 1977 "Cold Reading: How
|
|
to convince strangers you know all about them" by Ray Hyman.
|
|
|
|
These techniques are not confined to the occult world by any means.
|
|
Religous workers, salesmen and the like use the principles to build
|
|
rapport with people.
|
|
|
|
0.10: Is there a list of logical fallacies?
|
|
-------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
A complete list of formal and informal logical fallacies is posted by
|
|
Mathew <mathew@mantis.com> as part of his excellent alt.atheism FAQ
|
|
file series. This should be read carefully by anyone wishing to
|
|
construct a logical argument to support their position on any group.
|
|
|
|
For those who want more information, "The Book of the Fallacy" by
|
|
Madsen Pirie covers the same ground in more detail.
|
|
|
|
Formal and informal statistical fallacies are dealt with in the book
|
|
"How To Lie With Statistics" by Darrell Huff. I strongly recommend
|
|
this one.
|
|
|
|
0.11: What local skeptics organisations are there?
|
|
--------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
[Contact addresses please]
|
|
|
|
Australian Skeptics "The Skeptic", P.O. Box 475,
|
|
PO Box E324 Manchester,
|
|
St. James M60 2TH,
|
|
Sydney U.K.
|
|
NSW 2000
|
|
|
|
The Scientific Method
|
|
=====================
|
|
|
|
1.1: What is the "scientific method"?
|
|
-------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing
|
|
the truth from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something
|
|
like this:
|
|
|
|
1: Observe some aspect of the universe.
|
|
2: Invent a theory that is consistent with what you have
|
|
observed.
|
|
3: Use the theory to make predictions.
|
|
4: Test those predictions by experiments or further
|
|
observations.
|
|
5: Modify the theory in the light of your results.
|
|
6: Go to step 3.
|
|
|
|
This leaves out the co-operation between scientists in building
|
|
theories, and the fact that it is impossible for every scientist to
|
|
independently do every experiment to confirm every theory. Because
|
|
life is short, scientists have to trust other scientists. So a
|
|
scientist who claims to have done an experiment and obtained certain
|
|
results will usually be believed, and most people will not bother to
|
|
repeat the experiment.
|
|
|
|
Experiments do get repeated as part of other experiments. Most
|
|
scientific papers contain suggestions for other scientists to follow
|
|
up. Usually the first step in doing this is to repeat the earlier
|
|
work. So if a theory is the starting point for a significant amount
|
|
of work then the initial experiments will get replicated a number of
|
|
times.
|
|
|
|
Some people talk about "Kuhnian paradigm shifts". This refers to the
|
|
observed pattern of the slow extension of scientific knowledge with
|
|
occasional sudden revolutions. This does happen, but it still follows
|
|
the steps above.
|
|
|
|
Many philosophers of science would argue that there is no such thing
|
|
as *the* scientific method.
|
|
|
|
1.2: What is the difference between a fact, a theory and a hypothesis?
|
|
----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
In popular usage, a theory is just a vague and fuzzy sort of fact.
|
|
But to a scientist a theory is a conceptual framework that *explains*
|
|
existing facts and predicts new ones. For instance, today I saw the
|
|
Sun rise. This is a fact. This fact is explained by the theory that
|
|
the Earth is round and spins on its axis while orbiting the sun. This
|
|
theory also explains other facts, such as the seasons and the phases
|
|
of the moon, and allows me to make predictions about what will happen
|
|
tomorrow.
|
|
|
|
This means that in some ways the words "fact" and "theory" are
|
|
interchangeable. The organisation of the solar system, which I used as
|
|
a simple example of a theory, is normally considered to be a fact that
|
|
is explained by Newton's theory of gravity. And so on.
|
|
|
|
A hypothesis is a tentative theory that has not yet been tested.
|
|
Typically, a scientist devises a hypothesis and then sees if it "holds
|
|
water" by testing it against available data. If the hypothesis does
|
|
hold water, the scientist declares it to be a theory.
|
|
|
|
1.3: Can science ever really prove anything?
|
|
--------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Yes and no. It depends on what you mean by "prove".
|
|
|
|
For instance, there is little doubt that an object thrown into the air
|
|
will come back down (ignoring spacecraft for the moment). One could
|
|
make a scientific observation that "Things fall down". I am about to
|
|
throw a stone into the air. I use my observation of past events to
|
|
predict that the stone will come back down. Wow - it did!
|
|
|
|
But next time I throw a stone, it might not come down. It might
|
|
hover, or go shooting off upwards. So not even this simple fact has
|
|
been really proved. But you would have to be very perverse to claim
|
|
that the next thrown stone will not come back down. So for ordinary
|
|
everyday use, we can say that the theory is true.
|
|
|
|
You can think of facts and theories (not just scientific ones, but
|
|
ordinary everyday ones) as being on a scale of certainty. Up at the
|
|
top end we have facts like "things fall down". Down at the bottom we
|
|
have "the Earth is flat". In the middle we have "I will die of heart
|
|
disease". Some scientific theories are nearer the top than others,
|
|
but none of them ever actually reach it. Skepticism is usually
|
|
directed at claims that contradict facts and theories that are very
|
|
near the top of the scale. If you want to discuss ideas nearer the
|
|
middle of the scale (that is, things about which there is real debate
|
|
in the scientific community) then you would be better off asking on
|
|
the appropriate specialist group.
|
|
|
|
1.4: If scientific theories keep changing, where is the Truth?
|
|
--------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
In 1666 Isaac Newton proposed his theory of gravitation. This was one
|
|
of the greatest intellectual feats of all time. The theory explained
|
|
all the observed facts, and made predictions that were later tested
|
|
and found to be correct within the accuracy of the instruments being
|
|
used. As far as anyone could see, Newton's theory was the Truth.
|
|
|
|
During the nineteenth century, more accurate instruments were used to
|
|
test Newton's theory, and found some slight discrepancies (for
|
|
instance, the orbit of Mercury wasn't quite right). Albert Einstein
|
|
proposed his theories of Relativity, which explained the newly
|
|
observed facts and made more predictions. Those predictions have now
|
|
been tested and found to be correct within the accuracy of the
|
|
instruments being used. As far as anyone can see, Einstein's theory
|
|
is the Truth.
|
|
|
|
So how can the Truth change? Well the answer is that it hasn't. The
|
|
Universe is still the same as it ever was, and Newton's theory is as
|
|
true as it ever was. If you take a course in physics today, you will
|
|
be taught Newton's Laws. They can be used to make predictions, and
|
|
those predictions are still correct. Only if you are dealing with
|
|
things that move close to the speed of light do you need to use
|
|
Einstein's theories. If you are working at ordinary speeds outside of
|
|
very strong gravitational fields and use Einstein, you will get
|
|
(almost) exactly the same answer as you would with Newton. It just
|
|
takes longer because using Einstein involves rather more maths.
|
|
|
|
One other note about truth: science does not make moral judgements.
|
|
Anyone who tries to draw moral lessons from the laws of nature is on
|
|
very dangerous ground. Evolution in particular seems to suffer from
|
|
this. At one time or another it seems to have been used to justify
|
|
Nazism, Communism, and every other -ism in between. These
|
|
justifications are all completely bogus. Similarly, anyone who says
|
|
"evolution theory is evil because it is used to support Communism" (or
|
|
any other -ism) has also strayed from the path of Logic.
|
|
|
|
1.5: What evidence is needed for an extraordinary claim?
|
|
--------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Extraordinary evidence.
|
|
|
|
An extraordinary claim is one that contradicts a fact that is close
|
|
to the top of the certainty scale discussed above. So if you are
|
|
trying to contradict such a fact, you had better have facts available
|
|
that are even higher up the certainty scale.
|
|
|
|
1.6: What is Occam's Razor?
|
|
---------------------------
|
|
|
|
Ockham's Razor ("Occam" is a Latinised variant) is the principle
|
|
proposed by William of Ockham in the fifteenth century that
|
|
"Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate", which translates as
|
|
"entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily". Various other
|
|
rephrasings have been incorrectly attributed to him. In more modern
|
|
terms, if you have two theories which both explain the observed facts
|
|
then you should use the simplest until more evidence comes along. See
|
|
W.M. Thorburn, "The Myth of Occam's Razor," _Mind_ 27:345-353 (1918)
|
|
for a detailed study of what Ockham actually wrote and what others
|
|
wrote after him.
|
|
|
|
The reason behind the razor is that for any given set of facts there
|
|
are an infinite number of theories that could explain them. For
|
|
instance, if you have a graph with four points in a line then the
|
|
simplest theory that explains them is a linear relationship, but you
|
|
can draw an infinite number of different curves that all pass through
|
|
the four points. There is no evidence that the straight line is the
|
|
right one, but it is the simplest possible solution. So you might as
|
|
well use it until someone comes along with a point off the straight
|
|
line.
|
|
|
|
Also, if you have a few thousand points on the line and someone
|
|
suggests that there is a point that is off the line, it's a pretty
|
|
fair bet that they are wrong.
|
|
|
|
A related rule, which can be used to slice open conspiracy theories, is
|
|
Hanlon's Razor: "Never attribute to malice that which can be
|
|
adequately explained by stupidity". See the Jargon File (edited by
|
|
Eric Raymond) for more details.
|
|
|
|
1.7: Galileo was persecuted, just like researchers into <X> today.
|
|
------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
People putting forward extraordinary claims often refer to Galileo as
|
|
an example of a great genius being persecuted by the establishment for
|
|
heretical theories. They claim that the scientific establishment is
|
|
afraid of being proved wrong, and hence is trying to suppress the
|
|
truth.
|
|
|
|
This is a classic conspiracy theory. The Conspirators are all those
|
|
scientists who have bothered to point out flaws in the claims put
|
|
forward by the researchers.
|
|
|
|
The usual rejoinder to someone who says "They laughed at Columbus,
|
|
they laughed at Galileo" is to say "And they also laughed at Bozo the
|
|
Clown". (From Carl Sagan, "Broca's Brain", Coronet 1980, p79).
|
|
|
|
Incidentally, stories about the persecution of Galileo Galilei and the
|
|
ridicule Christopher Columbus had to endure should be taken with a
|
|
grain of salt.
|
|
|
|
During the early days of Galileo's theory church officials were
|
|
interested and sometimes supportive, even though they had yet to find
|
|
a way to incorporate it into theology. His main adversaries were
|
|
established scientists - since he was unable to provide HARD proofs
|
|
they didn't accept his model. Galileo became more agitated, declared
|
|
them ignorant fools and publicy stated that his model was the correct
|
|
one, thus coming in conflict with the church.
|
|
|
|
When Columbus proposed to take the "Western Route" the spherical
|
|
nature of the Earth was common knowledge, even though the diameter was
|
|
still debatable. Columbus simply believed that the Earth was a lot
|
|
smaller, while his adversaries claimed that the Western Route would be
|
|
too long. If America hadn't been in his way, he most likely would have
|
|
failed. The myth that "he was laughed at for believing that the Earth
|
|
was a globe" steems from an American author who intentionally
|
|
adulterated history.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.8: What is the "Experimenter effect"?
|
|
---------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
It is unconscious bias introduced into an experiment by the
|
|
experimenter. It can occur in one of two ways:
|
|
|
|
o Scientists doing experiments often have to look for small effects
|
|
or differences between the things being experimented on.
|
|
|
|
o Experiments require many samples to be treated in exactly the same
|
|
way in order to get consistent results.
|
|
|
|
Note that neither of these sources of bias require deliberate fraud.
|
|
|
|
A classic example of the first kind of bias was the "N-ray",
|
|
discovered early this century. Detecting them required the
|
|
investigator to look for very faint flashes of light on a
|
|
scintillator. Many scientists reported detecting these rays. They
|
|
were fooling themselves.
|
|
|
|
A classic example of the second kind of bias were the detailed
|
|
investigations into the relationship between race and brain capacity
|
|
in the last century. Skull capacity was measured by filling the empty
|
|
skull with beans and then measuring the volume of beans. A
|
|
significant difference in the results could be obtained by ensuring
|
|
that the beans in some skulls were better settled than others. For
|
|
more details on this story, read Stephen Jay Gould's "The Mismeasure
|
|
of Man".
|
|
|
|
For more detail see:
|
|
|
|
T.X. Barber, "Pitfalls of Human Research", 1976.
|
|
Robert Rosenthal, "Pygmalion in the Classroom".
|
|
|
|
[These were recommended by a correspondant. Sorry I have no more
|
|
information.]
|
|
|
|
1.9: How much fraud is there in science?
|
|
----------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
In its simplest form this question is unanswerable, since undetected
|
|
fraud is by definition unmeasurable. Of course there are many known
|
|
cases of fraud in science. Some use this to argue that all scientific
|
|
findings (especially those they dislike) are worthless.
|
|
|
|
This ignores the replication of results which is routinely undertaken
|
|
by scientists. Any important result will be replicated many times by
|
|
many different people. So an assertion that (for instance) scientists
|
|
are lying about carbon-14 dating requires that a great many scientists
|
|
are engaging in a conspiracy. See the previous question.
|
|
|
|
In fact the existence of known and documented fraud is a good
|
|
illustration of the self-correcting nature of science. It does not
|
|
matter if a proportion of scientists are fraudsters because any
|
|
important work they do will not be taken seriously without independant
|
|
verification. Hence they must confine themselves to pedestrian work
|
|
which no-one is much interested in, and obtain only the expected
|
|
results. For anyone with the talent and ambition necessary to get a
|
|
Ph.D this is not going to be an enjoyable career.
|
|
|
|
Also, most scientists are idealists. They perceive beauty in
|
|
scientific truth and see its discovery as their vocation. Without
|
|
this most would have gone into something more lucrative.
|
|
|
|
These arguments suggest that undetected fraud in science is both rare
|
|
and unimportant.
|
|
|
|
For more detail on more scientific frauds than you ever knew existed,
|
|
see "False Prophets" by Alexander Koln.
|
|
|
|
1.9.1: Did Mendel fudge his results?
|
|
------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Gregor Mendel was a 19th Century monk who discovered the laws of
|
|
inheritance (dominant and recessive genes etc.). More recent analysis
|
|
of his results suggest that they are "too good to be true". Mendelian
|
|
inheritance involves the random selection of possible traits from
|
|
parents, with particular probabilities of particular traits. It seems
|
|
from Mendel's raw data that chance played a smaller part in his
|
|
experiments than it should. This does not imply fraud on the part of
|
|
Mendel.
|
|
|
|
First, the experiments were not "blind" (see the questions about
|
|
double blind experiments and the experimenter effect). Deciding
|
|
whether a particular pea is wrinkled or not needs judgement, and this
|
|
could bias Mendel's results towards the expected. This is an example
|
|
of the "experimenter effect".
|
|
|
|
Second, Mendel's Laws are only approximations. In fact it does turn
|
|
out that in some cases inheritance is less random than his Laws state.
|
|
|
|
Third, Mendel might have neglected to publish the results of `failed'
|
|
experiments. It is interesting to note that all of his published work
|
|
is concerned with characteristics which are controlled by single
|
|
genes. He did not report any experiments with more complicated
|
|
characteristics.
|
|
|
|
Psychic Powers
|
|
==============
|
|
|
|
2.1: Is Uri Geller for real?
|
|
----------------------------
|
|
|
|
James "The Amazing" Randi has, through various demonstrations, cast
|
|
doubt on Geller's claims of psychic powers. Geller has sued Randi.
|
|
Skeptics are advised to exercise extreme caution in addressing this
|
|
topic, given the pending litigation. Bay Area Skeptics, Tampa Bay
|
|
Skeptics, and the Skeptics Society of Los Angeles have all been
|
|
threatened with litigation over this matter, which could be expected
|
|
to be extremely expensive and time-consuming whatever the eventual
|
|
outcome.
|
|
|
|
2.2: I have had a psychic experience.
|
|
-------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
That is pretty remarkable. But before you post to the Net, consider:-
|
|
|
|
* Could it just be coincidence? The human mind is good at
|
|
remembering odd things but tends to forget ordinary things, such as
|
|
premonitions that didn't happen. If psychic experiences happen to
|
|
you on a regular basis then try writing down the premonitions when
|
|
you have them and then comparing your record to later events.
|
|
|
|
* If you think you have a mental link with someone you know, try a
|
|
few tests with playing cards [Has anyone got a good protocol for
|
|
this kind of thing? PAJ].
|
|
|
|
* If you are receiving messages from elsewhere (e.g. UFOs), ask for
|
|
specific information that you can then check. The complete prime
|
|
factorisation of 2^1024+1 would be a good start: we don't know it,
|
|
but any proposed answer is easy to check.
|
|
|
|
If you want to make a formal registration of your predictions, send
|
|
mail to <prediction_registry@sol1.gps.caltech.edu>.
|
|
|
|
2.3: What is "Sensory Leakage"?
|
|
-------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Sensory leakage is something that designers of tests for psi must be
|
|
careful to guard against. Tests for psi use powerful statistical
|
|
tests to search for faint traces of communication. Unfortunately the
|
|
fact that communication has taken place does not prove that it was
|
|
done by telepathy. It could have been through some more mundane form
|
|
of signal.
|
|
|
|
For instance one experiment involved a "sender" in one room with a
|
|
stack of numbered cards (1-10) and a "receiver" in another room trying
|
|
to guess what the next card was. The sender looked at a card and
|
|
pressed a button to signal to the receiver. The receiver then tried
|
|
to guess the number on the card. There was a definite correlation
|
|
between the card numbers and the guesses. However the sender could
|
|
signal the receiver by varying the delays between buzzes. When this
|
|
channel of communication was removed, the effect disappeared.
|
|
|
|
2.4: Who are the main psi researchers?
|
|
--------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Targ and Puthoff spring to mind, but actually, Puthoff is no longer
|
|
doing psi research (I don't have any idea what Targ is up to these
|
|
days.) Granted, their SRI work is quite famous, but if we want to
|
|
review the historical (rather than currently active) figures, you
|
|
probably want to go back at least as far as the Rhines.
|
|
|
|
Helmut Schmidt, a physicist who has been looking at PK, is still
|
|
active at the Mind Science Foundation in Texas. (Sorry, I don't know a
|
|
more specific address than that.)
|
|
|
|
The Foundation for Research into the Nature of Man (FRNM), which is
|
|
what Rhine's work at Duke eventually developed into, is still active
|
|
near Duke. It is currently headed by K. Ramakrishna Rao.
|
|
|
|
The Koestler Chair of Parapsychology at the University of Edinburgh
|
|
is, as far as I know, still active. The current incumbent is, I think,
|
|
named Robert Morris; his main assistant is Deborah Delanoy.
|
|
|
|
Roger Nelson is active in the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research
|
|
center (PEAR) and occasionally posts to the net.
|
|
|
|
Active workers in the field that I can think of currently include Dean
|
|
Radin, who also posts to sci.skeptic as <dir2@gte.com>,
|
|
Jessica Utts, and Ed May. The Parapsychological Association has a much
|
|
larger roster than that, of course, but I'm not a member myself and
|
|
don't have access to their membership roll.
|
|
|
|
2.5: Does dowsing work?
|
|
-----------------------
|
|
|
|
Dowsing is the art of finding underground water by extra-sensory
|
|
perception. Sometimes tools are used. The traditional one is a
|
|
forked hazel stick. When held in the correct way this will twitch in
|
|
response to small muscle movements in the back and shoulders. Another
|
|
tool that has become popular in recent years is a pair of rods mounted
|
|
in tubes that are held in each hand just in front of the user.
|
|
|
|
Rod bent into tube.
|
|
|
|
|
V
|
|
r-------------------------------
|
|
|| ^
|
|
|| |
|
|
|| <- Tube Rod
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
When water (or something else) is dowsed, the rods turn towards each
|
|
other. Like the forked hazel stick it amplifies small movements of
|
|
the arm and shoulder muscles.
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately careful tests of dowsers have revealed absolutely no
|
|
ability to find water or anything else by extra-sensory perception.
|
|
Dowsing success stories can be explained by noting that wherever you
|
|
dig you will find water. You just have to dig deep enough. It has
|
|
also been suggested that dowsers may unconsciously use clues in the
|
|
environment.
|
|
|
|
James Randi has tested more than 100 dowsers (I don't know the actual
|
|
count). He tells that only 2 tried to cheat. This suggests that
|
|
dowsers are basically honest people.
|
|
|
|
The Skeptical Inquirer has published a number of articles on dowsing.
|
|
James Randi's "A Controlled Test of Dowsing" was in vol. 4, no. 1, pp.
|
|
16-20. Michael Martin's "A New Controlled Dowsing Experiment" was in
|
|
vol. 8, pp. 138-140. Dick Smith's "Two Tests of Divining in
|
|
Australia" was in vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 34-37. Randi's book Flim-Flam!
|
|
has a section on dowsing. The main skeptical book about dowsing is
|
|
Vogt, E.Z. and Hyman R. (1959, 2nd edition 1979) "Water witching USA".
|
|
The University of Chicago Press. 260 pages. Available as a paperback.
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.6: Could psi be inhibited by the presence of skeptics?
|
|
--------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Psychic researchers have noted something they call the "shyness
|
|
effect" (or more grandly "psi-mediated experimenter effects"). This
|
|
is invoked to explain the way in which many subjects' psychic powers
|
|
seem to fade when exposed to careful scrutiny and proper controls.
|
|
Often it is alleged that having a skeptic in the audience can prevent
|
|
the delicate operation of psi.
|
|
|
|
In its most extreme form this hypothesis becomes a "catch-22" that
|
|
makes any results consistent with a psi hypothesis. This renders the
|
|
hypothesis unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific. Less extreme
|
|
forms might be testable.
|
|
|
|
2.7: Why don't the skeptics test the *real* psychics?
|
|
-----------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
A claim is sometimes made that the Skeptics movement only tests those
|
|
psychics which it knows to be frauds. The real psychics are supposedly
|
|
being ignored by skeptics who are afraid to be proved wrong.
|
|
|
|
There are three problems with this claim.
|
|
|
|
Firstly, it assumes that all the skeptics are engaged in a conspiracy
|
|
to persuade the world that psychic powers do not exist. This is only
|
|
a Petty Conspiracy theory (see section 0), since it only requires the
|
|
involvment of a few dozen of the most prominent skeptics, but it is
|
|
still difficult to see any motive for such a deception. "Fear of
|
|
being proved wrong" implies that they already know they are wrong,
|
|
which makes their continued activity rather puzzling.
|
|
|
|
Secondly, most skeptics are always ready to take part in any
|
|
reasonable test. The "real" psychics are perfectly at liberty to
|
|
challange the skeptics.
|
|
|
|
Thirdly, there are always more alleged psychics. Hence this
|
|
argument presents the skeptics with an ever-receeding target. The
|
|
dialogue goes something like this:
|
|
|
|
Paranormalist: Yes, I conceed that Mr. Adams is a fake, but what about
|
|
Mr. Brown. The things that he does could never be
|
|
faked.
|
|
|
|
[Some months later]
|
|
|
|
Skeptic: Here is how Brown did it....
|
|
|
|
P: OK, I conceed that Adams and Brown are fakes, but Mrs Carver is the
|
|
surely the real thing.
|
|
|
|
[Some months later]
|
|
|
|
S: Here is how Carver did it...
|
|
|
|
P: OK, maybe Adams, Brown and Carver were fakes, but what about Digby
|
|
and Ender?
|
|
|
|
S: I give up. There's no convincing some people.
|
|
|
|
P: [shouting] Digby and Ender are real psychics: the skeptics are
|
|
afraid to test them. They only test the fakes!
|
|
|
|
|
|
UFOs and Flying Saucers
|
|
=======================
|
|
|
|
3.1 What are UFOs?
|
|
-------------------
|
|
|
|
UFOs are, simply, Unidentified Flying Objects, no more, no less. This
|
|
means that if you are out one night and see a light moving in the sky
|
|
and cannot immediately identify it as a certain star, planet or other
|
|
object, then it is by definition a UFO. THIS DOES NOT MEAN YOU HAVE
|
|
SEEN AN ALIEN SPACESHIP.
|
|
|
|
A better question would be:
|
|
|
|
3.1.1 Are UFOs alien spacecraft?
|
|
---------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Probably not. The vast majority of UFO reports, when investigated by
|
|
competent researchers (and that is a problem all by itself), can be
|
|
easily explained as natural or manmade objects misidentified for one
|
|
reason or another. The actual percentage is around 95%. A very few
|
|
reports are provable hoaxes. The remaining few percent (some skeptics
|
|
argue that there are no remaining reports) are not explained at this
|
|
time. Again, this does not mean that they are observations of alien
|
|
spaceships. All we can say is that, given the information presently
|
|
available, some cases don't appear to be stars, balloons, airplanes,
|
|
aurorae. etc. Given a great deal more time and effort, many more
|
|
could likely be identified. It's possible that the witness(es) were
|
|
in error, or are very good liars. And the remaining few cases? Well,
|
|
the best we can say, as true skeptics, is that we don't know what they
|
|
were, but there is NO proof that they were alien spacecraft.
|
|
|
|
3.1.2 Are UFOs natural phenomena?
|
|
----------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Possibly. A number of theories have been proposed, suggesting that
|
|
some UFOs are "plasmas" or variations of ball lightning or earthquake
|
|
lights. Unfortunately, the theories seem to change to fit observed
|
|
data, rather than predict the observations. Also, studies designed to
|
|
support the theories have used newspaper articles and raw, unsifted UFO
|
|
case lists for data, and therefore the studies do not appear to be
|
|
completely unbiased. Perhaps time will tell. Until then it is safe to
|
|
say that SOME UFOs are probably ball lightning or other rare natural
|
|
phenomena.
|
|
|
|
3.1.3 But isn't it possible that aliens are visiting Earth?
|
|
------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Yes. But it is also possible that there is an invisible snorg reading
|
|
this over your shoulder right now.
|
|
|
|
Basically, some astronomers (e.g. Carl Sagan) are convinced that there
|
|
are other habitable planets in our galaxy, and that there may be some
|
|
form of life on them. Assuming that parallel evolution occurred on
|
|
these other planets, there MIGHT be intelligent life forms there. It
|
|
is possible that some of these life forms could have an advanced
|
|
civilization, and perhaps have achieved space travel. BUT - there is
|
|
no proof that this is so. SETI programs such as the High Resolution
|
|
Microwave Search now being conducted by NASA under the direction of
|
|
Jill Tartar are "listening" to other stars in the hope of detecting
|
|
radio signals that might indicate intelligent life - kind of
|
|
listening for the equivalent of "Watson, come here, I need you!", or
|
|
"I love Lucy" in the infancy of our early communications. Such
|
|
searches have been fruitless, so far.
|
|
|
|
If there are aliens on distant planets, then it is possible that they
|
|
might have found a way to travel between stars in their lifetimes.
|
|
According to our present understanding of physics, this is not likely,
|
|
given the vast distances between stars. Even travelling at the speed
|
|
of light (which cannot be done), a round trip to the nearest star would
|
|
take about ten years. This does not rule out interstellar ships, but
|
|
it does make it seem unlikely that we are being visited.
|
|
|
|
If *even one* civilization has found a way to travel between stars in
|
|
the entire history of the Milky Way Galaxy (about ten billion years),
|
|
it ought to fill the entire Galaxy in only a hundred million years or
|
|
so. The question, then, is why don't we observe evidence of alien
|
|
civilization everywhere? This question is known as the Fermi Paradox,
|
|
and there is no really satisfactory answer. If, however, we postulate
|
|
alien visits to Earth, we must also accept a Galaxy-wide civilization
|
|
and ask why we see no evidence of it.
|
|
|
|
3.2: Is it true that the US government has a crashed flying saucer (MJ-12)?
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
The MJ-12 documents purportedly established that the U.S. government
|
|
had established a secret organization of 12 people called MJ-12 or
|
|
Majestic-12 to deal with UFOs. These 12 people were all conveniently
|
|
dead at the time the documents were discovered. Klass proved that the
|
|
documents are fakes.
|
|
|
|
The Roswell Incident refers to an alleged UFO crash in Roswell, NM.
|
|
This is also known as the "Roswell Incident". Philip Klass has also
|
|
investigated this one and shown the reports to be bogus. One of the
|
|
more notable items of "evidence" was a document "signed by the
|
|
president". Klass showed that this signature was a photocopy of an
|
|
existing presidential signature. See SI 14:2 (Winter 1990) pp
|
|
135-140.
|
|
|
|
All such allegations involve a conspiracy theory. Sometimes these
|
|
conspiracy theories get very big indeed. One common one involves a
|
|
treaty between the government and the saucer people whereby the
|
|
government stays in power and the saucer people get to abduct humans
|
|
for various gruesome purposes.
|
|
|
|
3.3: What is "channeling"?
|
|
--------------------------
|
|
|
|
"Channeling" is remarkably similar to Spiritualism. The main
|
|
difference is that the relatives "on the other side" are replaced by a
|
|
wide variety of other beings. This means that the channeler does not
|
|
have to worry about providing accurate information about people in the
|
|
audience. The beings that channelers claim to speak for range from
|
|
enlightened aliens to humans who lived thousands of years ago to
|
|
discarnate intelligences who have never had bodies.
|
|
|
|
3.4: How can we test a channeler?
|
|
---------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Some channelled entities are alleged to come from the distant past.
|
|
They can be asked about events, climate and language in ways that can
|
|
be checked.
|
|
|
|
If the entity is from a technically advanced race, try asking for the
|
|
complete factorisation of 2^1024+1.
|
|
|
|
3.5: I am in telepathic contact with the aliens.
|
|
------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
See the earlier section on psychic experiences and then try testing
|
|
your aliens to see if you get a specific answer. If you can come up
|
|
with new facts that can be tested by scientists then you will be
|
|
listened to. Otherwise you would do better on alt.alien.visitors.
|
|
|
|
3.6: Some bozo has just posted a load of "teachings" from a UFO. What
|
|
----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
should I do?
|
|
------------
|
|
|
|
You have several choices:
|
|
|
|
* Ignore it.
|
|
|
|
* Ask for evidence (see question 3.4 above).
|
|
|
|
* Insult or flame the poster. This is a bad idea.
|
|
|
|
3.7: Are crop circles made by flying saucers?
|
|
---------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
There is no convincing evidence that crop circles or any other kind of
|
|
UGM (Unusual Ground Markings) were made by aliens. There are some
|
|
reports of lights being seen in and around crop circle sites, and a few
|
|
videos showing objects flitting over fields. The lights are hardly
|
|
proof, and the objects in the videos seem to be pieces of foil or paper
|
|
being tossed about by the wind.
|
|
|
|
In a deliberate attempt to test crop circle "experts", a crop circle
|
|
was faked under the watchful eyes of the media. When cerealogists were
|
|
called in, they proclaimed it genuine.
|
|
|
|
3.7.1: Are crop circles made by "vortices"?
|
|
---------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Probably not. There are a number of meteorologists who believe that
|
|
crop circle formations are created by rare natural forces such as
|
|
"ionised plasma vortices". Basically, winds blowing across rolling
|
|
hills sometimes form eddies, which in some circumstances (that have
|
|
never been quantified) become strong, downward spiralling drafts that
|
|
lay down the crop. Cerealogists claim to have over two dozen witnesses
|
|
to such events. Unfortunately, many more have said they have seen
|
|
flying saucers do the same thing.
|
|
|
|
Scientific articles arguing for the reality of these vortices have
|
|
appeared regularly in the Journal of Meteorology. But its editor is
|
|
the leading proponent of the theory, Dr. Terence Meaden.
|
|
|
|
Winds can lay down crop in patches known as lodging. But geometric
|
|
patterns in fields can hardly be attributable to natural phenomena.
|
|
Meaden has changed his theory to first accommodate complex circles,
|
|
ovals and even triangles (!), but now admits that most circles are
|
|
hoaxes and the theory can only explain simpler patterns.
|
|
|
|
3.7.2: Are crop circles made by hoaxers?
|
|
-----------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Of course. Although most people have heard only of two, Doug Bower and
|
|
Dave Chorley of England, many others have been caught, not only in
|
|
Britain but in other countries such as Canada. Their methods range
|
|
from inscribed circles with a pole and a length of rope to more complex
|
|
systems involving chains, rollers, planks and measuring devices.
|
|
|
|
And as a further note: just because you can't prove a crop circle was
|
|
made by a hoaxer, you should not assume aliens were involved. Remember
|
|
Occam's Razor (Section 1.6).
|
|
|
|
3.7.3: Are crop circles radioactive?
|
|
--------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
This is a claim that has received wide circulation in UFO/cerealogy
|
|
circles (pardon the pun). It is also untrue. Examination of the data
|
|
from spectral analyses of soil taken from crop circles has shown that
|
|
there were no readings above the normal background levels. The
|
|
proponents of this claim are debating this, however.
|
|
|
|
3.7.4: What about cellular changes in plants within crop circles?
|
|
-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Yes, what about the changes? Although this is another claim that is
|
|
widely circulated among ufologists and cerealogists, the evidence is
|
|
simply not very good. A few photographs of alleged changes in the
|
|
"crystalline structure" of wheat stems were published in some
|
|
magazines and UFO publications. The method used was spagyrical
|
|
analysis. This is a technique involving crystallization of the
|
|
residue of organic material after harsh processing, invented three
|
|
centuries ago and popularized by Sir Kenelm Digby. Digby is known for
|
|
other wonderful inventions like condensation of sunlight and the
|
|
development of sword salve (which you had to put on the weapon rather
|
|
than on the wound, in order to cure the wound). The fact that this
|
|
technique was tried at all casts serious doubts on the "researchers"
|
|
involved.
|
|
|
|
3.8: Have people been abducted by UFOs?
|
|
---------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
While the number of people who believe themselves to have been
|
|
abducted by flying saucer aliens must number at least many thousands,
|
|
not one of them has produced any physical evidence to establish the
|
|
reality of their claim. On the contrary, a number of factors clearly
|
|
point to a subjective basis for the "UFO abduction" phenomenon.
|
|
Probably the strongest factor is that of the cultural dependence of
|
|
such claims. Such claims were virtually unknown until the famous
|
|
abduction story of Betty and Barney Hill received widespread publicity
|
|
in the late 1960s. Also, the appearance and behavior of supposed UFO
|
|
occupants varies greatly with location and year. UFO abduction claims
|
|
are made much less frequently outside North America, especially in
|
|
non-English-speaking countries, although foreign reports have started
|
|
to catch up since the publication of Whitley Strieber's "Communion".
|
|
Furthermore, the descriptions of supposed UFO aliens contain clear
|
|
cultural dependencies; in North America large-headed grey aliens
|
|
predominate, while in Britain abducting aliens are mostly tall, blond,
|
|
and Nordic. Aliens that are claimed to steal sperm, eggs, and fetuses,
|
|
or make scars or body implants on those supposedly abducted, were
|
|
practically unknown before the publication of Budd Hopkins's books.
|
|
This particularly alarming type of abduction seems to be quite rare
|
|
outside North America.
|
|
|
|
Clear "borrowings" from popular science fiction stories can be traced
|
|
in certain major "UFO abductions." Barney Hill's description of his
|
|
supposed abductors' "wraparound eyes" (an extreme rarity in science
|
|
fiction films), first described and drawn during a hypnosis session on
|
|
Feb. 22, 1964, comes just twelve days after the first broadcast of an
|
|
episode of "The Outer Limits" featuring an alien of this quite unique
|
|
description. Many other elements of the Hill story can be traced to
|
|
the 1953 film "Invaders from Mars," including aliens having "Jimmy
|
|
Durante" noses, an alien medical examination, something done to her
|
|
eyes to relax her, being probed with a needle, a star map hanging on a
|
|
wall, a notebook offered as a remembrance, even the imagery of a
|
|
needle in the navel. Other "abductees" borrowed other ideas from
|
|
"Invaders From Mars," including brain implants, aliens drilling into a
|
|
human skull, and aliens seeking to revitalize a dying world.
|
|
|
|
Originally, stories of UFO abductions were obtainable solely by
|
|
hypnotic regression of the claimant, although in recent years the
|
|
subject of "UFO abductions" has become so generally known that some
|
|
subjects claim to remember their "abduction" without hypnosis.
|
|
Hypnosis is a NOT a reliable method for extracting so- called "hidden
|
|
memories", and its use in this manner is likely to lead to fabrication
|
|
and error. Moreover, if it is suggested to a hypnotized person that
|
|
fictitious events have occurred, the subject himself may come to
|
|
believe this (See the article "Hypnosis" in the 1974 "Encyclopaedia
|
|
Brittanica" by Martin Orne).
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.9: What is causing the strange cattle deaths?
|
|
-----------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
The only information I have on these is a long file that came to me
|
|
via Len Bucuvalas <lpb@stratus.swdc.stratus.com> from ParaNet. The
|
|
gist is that cattle and other animals have been found dead with
|
|
strange mutilations. Organs, especially genitals, have been removed
|
|
but no blood appears to have been lost. These events are also
|
|
sometimes associated with reports of alien encounters and UFOs.
|
|
|
|
The best source of information on cattle mutilations is the
|
|
book Mute Evidence by Ian Summers and Daniel Kagan, a couple
|
|
of investigative journalists who started out believing that
|
|
something mysterious was happening, but ended up skeptics.
|
|
SI has published James Stewart's "Cattle Mutilations: An Episode
|
|
of Collective Delusion" (way back in vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 55-66).
|
|
Stewart is a sociologist who examined the pattern of reports and
|
|
found that new reports were inspired by previous media coverage.
|
|
It came in "waves" or "flaps".
|
|
|
|
3.10: What is the face on Mars?
|
|
-------------------------------
|
|
|
|
One of the Mars orbiters took a photograph of a part of Mars (Cydonia)
|
|
when the sun was very low on the horizon. The picture shows a "face"
|
|
and some nearby pyramids. Both these structures are seen more by
|
|
their shadows than their actual shape. The pyramid shadows appear
|
|
regular because their size is close to the limit of resolution of the
|
|
camera, and the "face" is just a chance arrangement of shadow over a
|
|
couple of hills. The human brain is very good at picking out familiar
|
|
patterns in random noise, so it is not surprising that a couple of
|
|
Martian surface features (out of thousands photographed) vaguely
|
|
resemble a face when seen in the right light.
|
|
|
|
Richard Hoagland has championed the idea that the Face is artificial,
|
|
intended to resemble a human, and erected by an extraterrestrial
|
|
civilization. Most other analysts concede that the resemblance is most
|
|
likely accidental. Other Viking images show a smiley-faced crater and
|
|
a lava flow resembling Kermit the Frog elsewhere on Mars. There exists
|
|
a Mars Anomalies Research Society (sorry, don't know the address) to
|
|
study the Face and related features.
|
|
|
|
The Mars Observer spacecraft, scheduled for launch September 25, has a
|
|
camera that can give 1.5m per pixel resolution. More details of the
|
|
Cydonia formations should become available when it arrives.
|
|
|
|
Anyone who wants to learn some more about this should look up "Image
|
|
Processing", volume 4 issue 3, which includes enhanced images of the
|
|
"face". Hoagland has written "The Monuments of Mars: A City on the
|
|
Edge of Forever", North Atlantic Books, Berkeley, California, USA,
|
|
1987.
|
|
|
|
[Some of this is from the sci.space FAQs]
|
|
|
|
3.11: Did Ezekiel See a Flying Saucer?
|
|
--------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
The chapter in question is Ezekiel 1:4-28. This vision is an example
|
|
of apocalyptic writing common in the centuries before and after
|
|
Christ. (Good examples are chapters 2 and 7-12 of Daniel and the book
|
|
of Revelation.) Apocalyptic literature is difficult to interpret
|
|
because the language is symbolic and figurative. In some cases the
|
|
writer will reveal what is meant by the symbols. Verse 28 identifies
|
|
Ezekiel's wheels within wheels vision as, "the appearance of the
|
|
likeness of the glory of the LORD." This "glory" is the "Khabod", a
|
|
manifestation of brilliant light thought to be present in the temple.
|
|
The wheels are described as appearing in a *vision* which is more like
|
|
an hallucination than a physical event. The wheels are seen again in
|
|
Ezekiel chap 10 leaving the temple in Jerusalem, but Ezekiel sees this
|
|
while sitting inside his house which is in Babylon (see Eze. 1:1-2 and
|
|
Eze. 8:1). In other words this was a message from God (or a
|
|
hallucination) rather than a physical event.
|
|
|
|
3.12: What happened at Tunguska?
|
|
--------------------------------
|
|
|
|
At 7:17 in the morning of June 30th 1908, close to the Stony Tunguska
|
|
River, on the Central Siberian Plateau, a huge air explosion occurred.
|
|
The explosion was powerful enough to be heard hundreds of miles away.
|
|
The area around the Stony Tunguska River is inaccessible and consists
|
|
mostly of bogs and pine forests. The seismic shocks from the
|
|
explosion were detected around the Earth. The London Times of July
|
|
4th, 1908 reported "The remarkable ruddy glows which have been seen on
|
|
many nights lately...seen...as far as Berlin."
|
|
|
|
When an expedition eventually reached the epicentre of the explosion
|
|
they found that the pine trees had been pushed over, pointing away
|
|
from the centre. The trees directly under the explosion remained
|
|
standing. Some small craters *were* observed at the time but have
|
|
disappeared over the years due to the boggy land. The pattern is now
|
|
recognised as being similar to that produced by an air-burst nuclear
|
|
bomb.
|
|
|
|
Currently the event is usually explained as a small, unnoticed, comet
|
|
hitting the upper atmosphere somewhere over China and finally
|
|
exploding a few seconds latter above Tunguska. A number of other
|
|
explainations have been offered...
|
|
|
|
* an atomic explosion. Some reports collected some time after the
|
|
event describe a typical mushroom cloud. The problem here is
|
|
that such clouds are typical of large explosions due to any cause
|
|
- they are not peculiar to atomic explosions. There is also the
|
|
difficulty in explaining how the Russians first developed and
|
|
then forgot the technology when it would have been very useful in
|
|
two major wars!
|
|
|
|
* a small black hole weighing a few million tons passed through the
|
|
Earth. The other entry/exit point was unnoticed as it was in the
|
|
ocean. Steven Hawking has now shown that black holes of such a
|
|
size have very short lives in cosmic terms due to an
|
|
`evaporation' effect.
|
|
|
|
* a small anti-matter meteor. This now seems very unlikely with
|
|
the recent discovery of large amounts of inter-stellar matter in
|
|
which, although still close to a vacuum, is quite sufficient to
|
|
erode any small amount of anti-matter quite rapidly. In addition,
|
|
the very existance of anti-matter in any sizable amounts in our
|
|
universe is now thought to be very unlikely.
|
|
|
|
* an alien spaceship, damaged and out of control, exploded during
|
|
an emergency landing. There is no supporting evidence for this
|
|
apart from eye witness reports of the vapour trail caused during
|
|
the objects passage through the atmosphere showing a distinct
|
|
`bend', which is supposed to be due to a course change. Such
|
|
bends can also be found in the vapour trails of aircraft which
|
|
can be seen to be flying straight and are caused by winds in the
|
|
upper atmosphere.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The event is not such a mystery as some suppose. In 1969 a Soviet
|
|
periodical published a bibliography of more than 1000 entries. Though
|
|
these are mostly in Russian it is not difficult to find references in
|
|
western scientific publications. `Nature' has published a number of
|
|
papers covering most of the above explanations.
|
|
|
|
References
|
|
|
|
John Baxter and Thomas Atkins, "The Fire Came By", Futura
|
|
Publications Ltd, 1977, ISBN 0 86000 7540 0
|
|
|
|
Oliver, Charles P. "The Great Siberian Meteorite," Scientific
|
|
American, Vol. 139, No. 1(1928), 42-44
|
|
|
|
Growther, J.G. "More About the Great Siberian Meteorite,"
|
|
Scientific American, Vol. 144, No. 5 (1931), 314-317
|
|
|
|
Zigel, Felix. "Nuclear Explosion over the Taiga: Study of the
|
|
Tunguska Meteorite," Znaniye-Sila, No. 12 (1961), 24-27 [English
|
|
translation available from Joint Publications Research Service,
|
|
Washington, DC., JPRS-13480 (April 1962)
|
|
|
|
Parry, Albert. "Russia's Rockets and Missiles" Macmillan 1962,
|
|
pp 248-267
|
|
|
|
Cowan,C.,C.R. Atluri and W.F. Libby. "Possible Anti-Matter
|
|
Content of the Tunguska Meteor of 1908," Nature, Vol. 206, No.
|
|
4987 (1965), 861-865
|
|
|
|
Jackson, A.A., and M.P. Ryan, "Was the Tungus Event Due to a
|
|
Black Hole?", Nature, Vol. 245, No. 5420 (1973), 88-89
|
|
|
|
Faith Healing and Alternative Therapies
|
|
=======================================
|
|
|
|
Disclaimer: I am not medically qualified. If you have a medical
|
|
problem then I strongly recommend that you go to a
|
|
qualified medical practitioner. Asking the Net for
|
|
specific medical advice is always a bad idea.
|
|
|
|
4.1: Isn't western medicine reductionistic and alternatives holistic?
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Practitioners of alternative therapies often put forward the idea that
|
|
modern scientific medicine is reductionistic: it concentrates on those
|
|
parts of the body that are not working properly, and in so doing it
|
|
reduces the patient to a collection of organs. Alternative therapies
|
|
try to consider the patient as a whole (a holistic approach).
|
|
|
|
This is a fine piece of rhetoric, but it's wrong. It is true that
|
|
modern medicine looks at the details of diseases, trying to find out
|
|
exactly what is going wrong and what is causing it. But it also looks
|
|
at the life of the patient, and tries to understand how the patient
|
|
interacts with his/her environment and how this interaction can be
|
|
improved. For instance, smoking is known to cause a wide variety of
|
|
medical problems. Hence doctors advise patients to give up smoking as
|
|
well as treating the individual illnesses that it causes. When a
|
|
patient presents with an illness then the doctor will not only treat
|
|
the illness but also try to understand how this illness was caused in
|
|
order to avoid a recurrence.
|
|
|
|
4.2: What is a double-blind trial? What is a placebo?
|
|
------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
A double-blind trial is the standard method for deciding whether or
|
|
not a treatment has any "real" effect.
|
|
|
|
A placebo is a "treatment" that has no effect except through the mind
|
|
of the patient. The usual form is a pill containing a little lactose
|
|
(milk-sugar), although a bitter-tasting liquid or injections of 1cc
|
|
saline can be used instead.
|
|
|
|
The "placebo effect" is the observed tendency for patients to display
|
|
the symptoms they are told to expect.
|
|
|
|
The problem is that the state of mind of a patient is often a
|
|
significant factor in the effect of a course of treatment. All
|
|
doctors know this; it is why "bedside manner" is considered so
|
|
important. In statistical tests of new treatments it is even more
|
|
important, since even a small effect from the state of mind of a small
|
|
fraction of the patients in the trial can have a significant effect
|
|
on the results. Hence new medicines are tested against a placebo.
|
|
The patients in the trial are randomly divided into two groups. One
|
|
of these groups is given the real medicine, the other is given the
|
|
placebo. Neither group knows which they have been given. Hence the
|
|
state of mind for both groups will be similar, and any difference
|
|
between the two groups must be due to the drug. This is a blind trial.
|
|
|
|
It has been found that patients can be unconsciously affected by the
|
|
attitude and expectations of the doctor supplying the drug, even if
|
|
the doctor does not explicitly tell them what to expect. Hence it is
|
|
usual for the doctor to be equally unaware which group is which. This
|
|
is a "double blind" trial. The job of remembering which group is
|
|
which is given to some administrative person who does not normally
|
|
come into contact with patients.
|
|
|
|
This causes problems for many alternative therapies because they do
|
|
something to the patient which is difficult to do in a placebo-like
|
|
manner. For instance, a treatment involving the laying-on of hands
|
|
cannot be done in such a way that both patient and practitioner are
|
|
unaware as to whether a "real" laying on of hands has taken place.
|
|
There are partial solutions to this. For instance one study employed
|
|
a three-way test of drug placebo, counseling and alternative therapy.
|
|
|
|
4.3: Why should scientific criteria apply to alternative therapies?
|
|
-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
So that we can tell if they work or not. If you take an patient
|
|
and give them treatment then one of three things will happen: the
|
|
patient will get better, will get worse, or will not change. And this
|
|
is true whether the treatment is a course of drugs chosen by a doctor,
|
|
an alternative therapy, or just counting to ten.
|
|
|
|
Many alternative therapies depend on "anecdotal evidence" where
|
|
particular cases got better after the therapy was applied. Almost any
|
|
therapy will have some such cases, even if it actually harms the
|
|
patients. And so anecdotal evidence of Mrs. X who was cured of cancer
|
|
by this wonderful new treatment is not useful in deciding whether the
|
|
treatment is any good.
|
|
|
|
The only way to tell for sure whether or not an alternative treatment
|
|
works is to use a double-blind trial, or as near to it as you can get.
|
|
See the previous question.
|
|
|
|
4.4: What is homeopathy?
|
|
------------------------
|
|
|
|
Homeopathy is sometimes confused with herbalism. A herbalist
|
|
prescribes herbs with known medicinal effects. Two well known
|
|
examples are foxglove flowers (which contain digitalin) and willow
|
|
bark (which contains aspirin). Folk remedies are now being studied
|
|
extensively in order to winnow the wheat from the chaff.
|
|
|
|
Homeopathists believe that if a drug produces symptoms similar to
|
|
certain disease then a highly diluted form of the same drug will cure
|
|
the disease. The greater the dilution, the stronger this curative
|
|
effect will be (this is known as the law of Arndt-Schulz). Great
|
|
importance is also attatched to the way in which the diluted solution
|
|
is shaken during the dilution.
|
|
|
|
People are skeptical about homeopathy because:
|
|
|
|
1: There is no known mechanism by which it can work. Many homeopathic
|
|
treatments are so diluted that not one molecule of the original
|
|
substance is contained in the final dose.
|
|
|
|
2: The indicator symptoms are highly subjective. Some substances have
|
|
hundreds of trivial indicators.
|
|
|
|
3: Almost no clinical tests have been done.
|
|
|
|
4: It is not clear why trace impurities in the dilutants are not also
|
|
fortified by the dilution mechanism.
|
|
|
|
Reports of one scientific trial that seemed to provide evidence for
|
|
homeopathy until a double-blind trial was set up can be found in
|
|
Nature vol 333, p.816 and further, and the few issues of Nature
|
|
following that, about until November of that year (1988).
|
|
|
|
SI ran a good article on the origins and claims of homeopathy:
|
|
Stephen Barrett, M.D., "Homeopathy: Is It Medicine?", SI,
|
|
vol. 12, no. 1, Fall 1987, pp. 56-62.
|
|
|
|
4.5: What is aromatherapy?
|
|
--------------------------
|
|
|
|
A belief that the essential oils of various flowers have therapeutic
|
|
effects. These effects are psychological rather than physical, and so
|
|
its a bit difficult to define what we mean by a statement that "it
|
|
works". After all, if people do it and feel better then that is a
|
|
real effect, whether it occured because of suggestion or because the
|
|
flowers contain a powerful psychoactive drug.
|
|
|
|
4.6: What is reflexology? What is iridology?
|
|
---------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Reflexology is an alternative therapy based on massage of the feet.
|
|
The idea is that parts of the body can be mapped onto areas of the
|
|
feet. There is no known mechanism by which massaging the feet can
|
|
affect other parts of the body (other than the simple soothing and
|
|
relaxing effect that any massage gives) and no evidence that it
|
|
actually works.
|
|
|
|
Iridology is a remarkably similar notion. Diseases are detected and
|
|
diagnosed by examining the iris of the eye. A good critique of
|
|
iridology: Russell S. Worrall, "Iridology: Diagnosis or Delusion?",
|
|
SI, vol. 7 no. 3, pp. 23-35.
|
|
|
|
4.7: Does acupuncture work?
|
|
----------------------------
|
|
|
|
There is evidence that acupuncture treatment has an analgesic ("pain
|
|
killing") effect. The mechanism seems to involve the endogenous
|
|
opiate system (at least in part), but the exact mechanism by which
|
|
endogenous opiates are released by acupuncture skin stimulation is not
|
|
yet known. It does not appear that the effect can be explained simply
|
|
by pain caused by the needles.
|
|
|
|
There have been reports of measurable physiological effects,
|
|
apparently via local changes in the activity of the sympathetic and
|
|
parasympathetic nervous systems. While much more detail remains to be
|
|
elucidated, this is at least a testable hypothesis which brings
|
|
acupuncture within the realm of science.
|
|
|
|
This suggests that acupuncture can be a useful tool in pain
|
|
management, but that it is unlikely to be of value in curing the
|
|
underlying cause of the pain.
|
|
|
|
The traditional theory of acupuncture involves balancing the yin and
|
|
yang (male and female principles) which flow in pathways through the
|
|
body. Nothing bearing any resemblance to this has been found by
|
|
medical researchers.
|
|
|
|
~References:
|
|
|
|
Skrabanek, Paul: Acupuncture: Past, Present and Future. In: Examining
|
|
Holistic Medicine by Stalker D & Glymour G (eds), Prometheus Books, NY
|
|
|
|
Skrabanek, Paul: Acupuncture and Endorphins. Lancet 1984;i:220
|
|
|
|
Skrabanek, Paul: Acupuncture and the Age of Unreason. Lancet
|
|
1984;i:1169-1171
|
|
|
|
Skrabanek, Paul: Acupuncture-Needless Needles. Irish Medical
|
|
Journal1986;79:334-335
|
|
|
|
A 1977 study, Stern, Brown, Ulett, and Sletten, 'A comparison of
|
|
hypnosis, acupuncture, morphine, Valium, aspirin, and placebo in the
|
|
management of experimentally induced pain,' Annals_of_the_New_York_
|
|
Academy_of_Sciences, 296, 175-193, found that acupuncture,
|
|
morphine, and hypnostic analgesia all produced significantly reduced
|
|
pain ratings for cold pressor and ischemic pain.
|
|
|
|
Mayer,Price, Raffi, 1977,
|
|
"Antagonism of acupuncture analgesia in man by the narcotic
|
|
antagonist naloxone," _Brain_Research_, 121, 368-372.
|
|
|
|
Sjolund, Terenius, Erikson, 1977,
|
|
"Increased cerebrospinal fluid levels of endorphins after electroacupuncture,"
|
|
Acta_Physiologica_Scandinavica, 100, 382-384.
|
|
|
|
"Practical application of acupuncture analgesia" and it's by Cheng,
|
|
SB (1973 Apr 27), _Nature 242(5400)_: 559-60.
|
|
|
|
"Electrophysiological measures during acupuncture-induced surgical
|
|
analgesia" by Starr A (1989 Sep) _Arch Neurol 46(9)_: 1010-12.
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.8: What about psychic surgery?
|
|
--------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Psychic surgeons have claimed to be able to make magical incisions,
|
|
remove cancers and perform other miracles. To date, no investigation
|
|
of a psychic surgeon has ever found real paranormal ability. Instead
|
|
they have found one of two things:
|
|
|
|
1: Simple conjuring tricks. The "surgeons" in these cases are
|
|
confidence tricksters who prey on the desperate and the foolish.
|
|
|
|
2: Delusions of grandeur. These people are even more dangerous than
|
|
the first category, as their treatments may actually cause harm in
|
|
addition to whatever was wrong with the patient in the first
|
|
place.
|
|
|
|
4.9: What is Crystal Healing?
|
|
-----------------------------
|
|
|
|
The belief that carrying a small quartz crystal will make you a
|
|
healthier person. People selling these crystals use phrases like "the
|
|
body's natural energy fields" and "tuning into the right vibrational
|
|
frequencies". All this sounds vaguely scientific but means absolutely
|
|
nothing. Crystal Healing is mostly a New Age idea. See the section
|
|
on the New Age below for more information.
|
|
|
|
4.10: Does religious healing work?
|
|
----------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Miraculous healing is often put forward as a proof of the existence
|
|
and approval of God. The Catholic and Christian Scientist churches in
|
|
particular often claim that believers have been healed, but none of
|
|
these healings have stood up to careful scrutiny. However it should
|
|
be noted that the Catholic church does investigate alleged miracles.
|
|
|
|
One famous "healing" which has been carefully investigated is the case
|
|
of Mrs. Jean Neil. Many people have seen the video of her getting out
|
|
of a wheel-chair and running around the stadium at meeting led by the
|
|
German evangeist Reinhard Bonnke. This was investigated by Dr. Peter
|
|
May, a GP and member of the General Synod of the Church of England.
|
|
His findings were reported in the Skeptic (organ of the UK Skeptics).
|
|
Here is a summary of the report. [Any errors are mine. PAJ].
|
|
|
|
May found that Mrs. Neil was helpful and enthusiastic when he
|
|
contacted her, and there is little doubt that her quality of life has
|
|
improved greatly since the "healing". However May was unable to find
|
|
any physical changes. His report lists each of the illnesses claimed
|
|
by Mrs. Neil, and he found that they were either not recorded by
|
|
doctors previous to the healing or that no physical change had taken
|
|
place. It seems that the only change in Mrs. Neil was in her mental
|
|
state. Before the healing she was depressed and introverted.
|
|
Afterwards she became happy and outgoing.
|
|
|
|
A more sinister aspect of the story is the presentation of the Neil
|
|
case in a video promoted by CfaN Productions. This represented Mrs.
|
|
Neil before the healing as a "hopeless case", implied that she had a
|
|
single serious illness rather than a series of less major ones, and
|
|
included the false statement that she had been confined to a
|
|
wheelchair for 25 years (in fact Mrs. Neil had used a wheelchair for
|
|
about 15 months and could still walk, although with great difficulty).
|
|
A report on her spine was carefully edited to include statements about
|
|
her new pain-free movement but to exclude the statement that there was
|
|
no evidence of physical changes.
|
|
|
|
For the full report, see "The Skeptic" p9, vol. 5, no. 5, Sept. 91. Back
|
|
issues are available from "The Skeptic (Dept. B), P.O. Box 475,
|
|
Manchester, M60 2TH, U.K. Price UKL 2.10 for UK, UKL 2.70 elsewhere.
|
|
|
|
The video is entitled "Something to Shout About --- The Documentation
|
|
of a Miracle". May does not say where this can be obtained. [Does
|
|
anyone know?]
|
|
|
|
Of course, this does not disprove the existence of miraculous healing.
|
|
Even Mrs. Neil's improvement could have been due to divine
|
|
intervention rather than a sub-conscious decision to get better (as
|
|
most skeptics would conclude, although the May report carefully
|
|
refrains from doing so). I include this summary here because the Neil
|
|
case is often cited by evangelical Christians as an undeniable
|
|
miracle. In fact the case demonstrates that even such dramatic events
|
|
as a cripple getting up and running may not be so very inexplicable.
|
|
|
|
For more general coverage of this topic, see James Randi's book "The
|
|
Faith Healers". Free Inquiry magazine has also run exposes on
|
|
fraudulent faith healers like Peter Popoff and W.V. Grant.
|
|
|
|
4.11: What harm does it do anyway?
|
|
----------------------------------
|
|
|
|
People have died when alternative practitioners told them to stop
|
|
taking conventional treatment. Children have died when their parents
|
|
refused to give them conventional treatment. These issues matter.
|
|
|
|
Most alternative treatments are harmless, so the "complementary
|
|
medicine" approach where conventional and alternative therapies
|
|
proceed in parallel will not hurt anyone physically (although it is a
|
|
waste of time and money).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Creation versus Evolution
|
|
=========================
|
|
|
|
5.1: Is the Bible evidence of anything?
|
|
---------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Apart from the beliefs of those who wrote it, no. It is true that
|
|
most Christians take the truth of at least some parts of the bible as
|
|
an article of faith, but non-Christians are not so constrained.
|
|
Quoting the bible to such a person as "evidence" will simply cause
|
|
them to question the accuracy of the bible. See the alt.atheism FAQ
|
|
lists for more details.
|
|
|
|
Some things in the bible are demonstrably true, but this does not make
|
|
the bible evidence, since there are also things in the bible that are
|
|
demonstrably false.
|
|
|
|
5.2: Could the Universe have been created old?
|
|
----------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
An argument is sometimes put forwards along the following lines:
|
|
|
|
We know from biblical evidence (see above) that the Universe
|
|
is about 6,000 years old. Therefore God created it 6,000
|
|
years ago with fossils in the ground and light on its way from
|
|
distant stars, so that there is no way of telling the real age
|
|
of the Universe simply by looking at it.
|
|
|
|
This hypothesis is unfalsifiable, and therefore not a scientific one
|
|
(see the section on the scientific method). It could also be made for
|
|
any date in the past (like last Tuesday). Finally it requires that
|
|
God, who is alleged to speak to us through His Works, should be lying
|
|
to us by setting up a misleading Creation. This seems to be rather
|
|
inconsistent with Biblical claims of God being the source of all
|
|
truth.
|
|
|
|
Note that this argument is not put forward by creation scientists.
|
|
They hold that modern science has misinterpreted the evidence about
|
|
the age of the universe.
|
|
|
|
5.3: What about Carbon-14 dating?
|
|
---------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Isotope dating takes advantage of the fact that radioactive materials
|
|
break down at a rate independent of their environment. Any solid
|
|
object that formed containing radioactive materials therefore steadily
|
|
loses them to decay. If it is possible to compare the amount of
|
|
radioactive material currently present with the amount originally
|
|
present, one can deduce how long ago the object was formed. The amount
|
|
originally present cannot, of course, be observed directly, but can be
|
|
determined by indirect means, such as identifying the decay products.
|
|
|
|
C-14 dating uses an unstable isotope of carbon that is constantly
|
|
being produced in the upper atmosphere by cosmic rays. This process is
|
|
assumed to be in equilibrium with the decay of C-14 throughout the
|
|
biosphere, so the proportion of carbon that is C-14 as opposed to the
|
|
stable C-12 and C-13 isotopes is essentially constant in any living
|
|
organism. When an organism dies, it stops taking up new carbon from
|
|
its environment, but the C-14 in its body continues to decay. By
|
|
measuring the amount of C-14 left in organic remains, one can
|
|
establish how long ago the organism they came from died. Because C-14
|
|
has a half-life of only a few thousand years, C-14 dating can only be
|
|
used for remains less than a few tens of thousands of years old--
|
|
after that, the C-14 is entirely gone, to all practical purposes.
|
|
Other isotopic dating techniques, such as potassium-argon dating, use
|
|
much longer-lived radionuclides and can reliably measure dates
|
|
billions of years in the past.
|
|
|
|
Actually the production rate isn't all that constant, so the amount of
|
|
C-14 in the biosphere varies somewhat with time. You also need to be
|
|
sure that the only source of carbon for the organism was atmospheric
|
|
carbon (via plants). The nominal date from a C-14 reading, based on
|
|
the present concentration, therefore has to be corrected to get the
|
|
real date --- but once the correction has been calculated using an
|
|
independent dating tool like dendrochronology (see below), it can be
|
|
applied to almost any sample.
|
|
|
|
There are some known anomolies in C14 dating, such as molluscs that
|
|
get their carbon from water. Creationists seem to make a habit of
|
|
taking samples that are known to be useless for C14 dating, presenting
|
|
them to scientists for examination, representing them as other than
|
|
they are, and then claiming the anomalous dates they get for them as
|
|
evidence that C14 dating is all a sham.
|
|
|
|
While it is true that there *may* be unknown errors in some dating
|
|
methods (see the note in section 0 about science "proving" things)
|
|
this assertion cannot be used to write off isotope dating as evidence
|
|
of an ancient Earth. This is because:
|
|
|
|
o There are several independent ways of dating objects, including
|
|
radio-isotopes, dendrochronology, position in rock strata etc.
|
|
These all give a consistent picture.
|
|
|
|
o Dating methods all point to an *old* Earth, about *half a million*
|
|
times older than the Creationists claim. This requires dating
|
|
methods which are accurate up to 6,000 years ago and then suddenly
|
|
start to give completely wrong (but still consistent) answers. Even
|
|
if our dating methods are out by a factor of 10 or 100, the earth is
|
|
still thousands of times older than Creationists claim.
|
|
|
|
5.4: What is dendrochronology?
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
The science of dating wood by a study of annual rings.
|
|
|
|
[These figures and references come from a longer summary e-mailed to me
|
|
by <whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.com>. Any mistakes are mine. PAJ]
|
|
|
|
Everyone knows that when you cut down a tree the cut surface shows a
|
|
series of concentric rings, and that one of these rings is added each
|
|
year as the tree grows. The lighter part of the ring is the summer
|
|
growth and the darker part is the winter growth. Hence you can date a
|
|
tree by counting the rings.
|
|
|
|
But the rings are not evenly spaced. Some rings are wider than
|
|
others. These correspond to good and poor growing seasons. So if you
|
|
have a piece of wood cut down a few thousand years ago, you can date
|
|
it by comparing the pattern of rings in your sample to known patterns
|
|
in recently cut trees (Bristlecone pines exist which are over 4600
|
|
years old, and core samples allow ring counting without killing the
|
|
tree).
|
|
|
|
Now for the clever bit. The tree from which your sample came may have
|
|
been old before any trees now alive were even saplings. So you can
|
|
extend the known pattern of rings back even further, and hence date
|
|
samples of wood which are even older. By lining up samples of wood in
|
|
this way, dendrochronologists have been able to produce a continuous
|
|
pattern of rings going back around 9,900 years. This easily refutes
|
|
the chronology of Bishop Usher, who calculated from dates and ages
|
|
given in the Bible that the Earth was created in 4004 BC.
|
|
|
|
Dendrochronology is also valuable in providing calibration data for
|
|
C14 and other isotope dating methods. See the previous question for
|
|
more details.
|
|
|
|
~References:
|
|
|
|
"Dendrochronology of the Bristlecone Pine....."
|
|
by C. W. Ferguson, 1970. Published in a book called
|
|
"Radiocarbon Variations and Absolute Chronology"
|
|
|
|
This takes the record back 7484 years. I am told that more recent
|
|
work published in Nature in 1991 [exact reference anyone?] has pushed
|
|
this back to the 9,900 years I mentioned above.
|
|
|
|
5.5: What is evolution? Where can I find out more?
|
|
---------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Many creationist "refutations" of evolution are based on a straw-man
|
|
argument. The technique is to misrepresent the theory of evolution,
|
|
putting forward an absurd theory as "what scientists claim". The
|
|
absurdity of this pseudo-evolution theory is then ridiculed.
|
|
|
|
Debunking all these refutations would take a lot of space. Instead I
|
|
suggest that anyone interested should go and read the FAQ lists over
|
|
on talk.origins. These contain good explanations of what evolution is
|
|
(and isn't). Books and essays on the subject by Stephen Jay Gould are
|
|
good, and "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins is the sort of
|
|
book that makes you want to find a creationist to argue with.
|
|
|
|
5.6: "The second law of thermodynamics says....
|
|
-----------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
...that entropy is always increasing. Entropy is a measure of the
|
|
randomness in a system. So the universe is getting more and more
|
|
disordered. But if this is so, how can life happen, since
|
|
evolutionists claim essentially that life is a system that becomes
|
|
more ordered with time?"
|
|
|
|
In fact this is a misstatement of the law. Here is one generally
|
|
accepted statement of the Second Law:
|
|
|
|
No process is possible whose *sole* result is a heat flow out of
|
|
a system and at a given temperature and the performance of work
|
|
with that energy.
|
|
|
|
In other words, you can't get work except by exploiting a temperature
|
|
gradient (at least, not thermodynamically - forms of potential energy
|
|
other than heat may be used - but they can also be used to make a
|
|
heat gradient).
|
|
|
|
Notice that this statement of the second law doesn't mention the word
|
|
"disorder". In fact, the principle of entropy increase also does not,
|
|
since entropy is a thermodynamic state variable whose definition is
|
|
independent of such ill-defined terms as "disorder".
|
|
|
|
So, where does this idea that entropy is a measure of "disorder" come
|
|
from - and what does it mean anyway? Well, the idea comes from a
|
|
misstatement of the theory of statistical mechanics. And the meaning
|
|
is nil - since the term "disorder" has no precise scientific meaning
|
|
anyway.
|
|
|
|
In statistical mechanics, "entropy" is defined in terms of the number
|
|
of distinct energy "microstates" that are possible within the system.
|
|
This diversity of states was (and sometimes still is) informally
|
|
called "disorder" by some statistical mechanics experts when trying to
|
|
convey a feel for the subject to lay audiences. It was never a
|
|
technical term - and never had any specific meaning in the theory.
|
|
The term "disorder" applied in this way is misleading (or, at best,
|
|
meaningless). A room which is messy would be informally called
|
|
"disordered" by most people - even if they're ignorant (as most are)
|
|
of the entropy of the room. The room might actually have a *higher*
|
|
entropy after it has been cleaned.
|
|
|
|
In addition the laws of thermodynamics only apply to closed systems
|
|
(which the Earth is not). Small parts of such a closed system can
|
|
show a decrease in entropy, but only if some other part has a higher
|
|
entropy. Entropy in the system as a whole will always increase.
|
|
|
|
For instance, when you freeze water the molecules of H2O line up in
|
|
beautifully organised crystals. This organisation does not violate
|
|
the second law of thermodynamics because the work done by the freezer
|
|
in extracting the heat from the water has caused the total entropy of
|
|
the *universe* to rise, even though the entropy of the *water* has
|
|
decreased.
|
|
|
|
Similarly the existence of life on earth has not decreased the entropy
|
|
of the universe, so the second law has not been violated.
|
|
|
|
5.7: How could living organisms arise "by chance"?
|
|
--------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
This is actually a less sophisticated version of the question above.
|
|
Consider the freezing water in the example. The wonderful arrangement
|
|
in crystals arises from the random movement of water molecules. But
|
|
ice crystals do not require divine intervention as an explanation, and
|
|
neither does the evolution of life.
|
|
|
|
Also, consider a casino. An honest casino makes a profit from
|
|
roulette wheels. The result of a spin of a particular wheel is purely
|
|
random, but casinos make very predictable profits. So in evolutionary
|
|
theory, even though the occurence of a particular mutation is random,
|
|
the overall effect of improved adaptation to the environment over time
|
|
is not.
|
|
|
|
The actual origin of life is more problematical. If you stick some
|
|
ammonia, methane and a few other simple chemicals into a jar and
|
|
subject them to ultraviolet light then after a week or two you get a
|
|
mixture of organic molecules, including amino acids (the building
|
|
blocks of protein). So current theories propose a "primordial soup"
|
|
of dilute organic chemicals. Somewhere a molecule happened to form
|
|
which could make copies of itself out of other molecules floating
|
|
around in the soup, and the rest is history.
|
|
|
|
Ilya Prigogine's work in non-equilibrium thermodynamics (for which he
|
|
received a Nobel prize) shows that thermodynamic systems far out of
|
|
equilibrium tend to produce spontaneous order through what he calls
|
|
"dissipative structures". Dissipative structures trade a *local*
|
|
increase in orderliness for faster overall increase in entropy. Life
|
|
can be viewed as a dissipative structure in exactly this sense --- not
|
|
a wildly improbable freak of combinations but as a natural, indeed
|
|
inevitable result of the laws of thermodynamics.
|
|
|
|
5.8: But doesn't the human body seem to be well designed?
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Not to me. Consider a few pieces of the human body for a moment. The
|
|
back for instance. The reason we poor humans suffer so much from back
|
|
problems is that the back is actually not well designed. And what
|
|
about human reproduction. Can you imagine any engineer being proud of
|
|
having designed *that*?
|
|
|
|
5.9: What about the thousands of scientists who have become Creationists?
|
|
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
This outrageous claim is frequently made by creationists, but somehow
|
|
these mystery scientists are never identified. It is claimed that
|
|
these conversions have been caused by "the evidence", but this
|
|
evidence never seems to be forthcoming either.
|
|
|
|
To test this claim, try looking up "creation" and "bible" in any
|
|
biology or paleontology journal index.
|
|
|
|
Even if this claim were true, it would not be a reason to become a
|
|
creationist. The only reason for adopting creationism as a scientific
|
|
theory would be the production of convincing evidence.
|
|
|
|
5.10: Is the Speed of Light Decreasing?
|
|
---------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
The origin of this claim is a paper by Norman & Setterfield which
|
|
plots various historical measurements of the speed of light and claims
|
|
to show a steady decrease. Extrapolating backwards, they conclude
|
|
that the Universe is only about 6,000 years old.
|
|
|
|
The first point about their paper is that it was originally
|
|
distributed in Stanford Research Institute covers, and is sometimes
|
|
described as an SRI report. However SRI did not have anything to do
|
|
with the report and are tired of answering queries about it.
|
|
|
|
Norman & Setterfield appear to have selected their data in order to
|
|
support their hypothesis: graphs include only those points which are
|
|
close to the "theoretical" curve while ommitting points which are not
|
|
close to the curve. This curve gives an inverse cosecant relationship
|
|
between time and the speed of light. There is no justification for
|
|
such a curve: the usual curve for a decaying value is exponential and
|
|
this would have fitted the plotted data just as well as the inverse
|
|
cosecant chosen by Norman and Setterfield.
|
|
|
|
5.11: What about Velikovsky?
|
|
----------------------------
|
|
|
|
In the 1950s a Russian psychologist named Immanuel Velikovsky wrote
|
|
"Worlds in Collision". This book and its successors are remarkable
|
|
for the density of scientific, archeological and mythological howlers.
|
|
There are far to many to list here, but most are sufficient to cast
|
|
serious doubt on his knowledge of any of these fields, and many are so
|
|
large that even one is enough to refute the entire theory.
|
|
|
|
Much of Velilovsky's proof lies in statements of the form "The reason
|
|
for <X> is not known. My theory explains it as follows:". Many of
|
|
these reasons were in fact known when Velikovsky wrote, and many
|
|
others have been discovered since. None of these reasons bear any
|
|
relationship to Velikovksy's theory. The predictive value of the
|
|
theory appears to be nil.
|
|
|
|
The books lack any mathematical analysis at all, which is strange
|
|
considering that mathematics is the language of science, especially
|
|
physics and astronomy.
|
|
|
|
Some of the more noticable howlers are:
|
|
|
|
1: Strange orbits which cannot be explained in terms of Newtonian
|
|
mechanics (or indeed anything less than an angel sitting on a
|
|
planet and steering it like a starship!).
|
|
|
|
2: The Earth's spin being altered suddenly by a close encounter with
|
|
Venus, and then restored. Where to begin? Planets just don't do
|
|
that.
|
|
|
|
3: A confusion between hydrocarbons (e.g petrol, mineral oil, tar) and
|
|
carbohydrates (e.g sugar, starch, glucose).
|
|
|
|
4: World-shaking events (literally) which were accurately recorded by
|
|
the Isralites but not even noticed anywhere else, even quite close
|
|
by.
|
|
|
|
5: Ancient records (e.g Mayan, Sumerian and Chinese astronomical
|
|
observations) which contradict Velikovsky's theory.
|
|
|
|
Velikovsy's supporters often cite a conspiracy theory to explain why
|
|
the world of science refuses to take these ideas seriously. See
|
|
section 0 of this FAQ.
|
|
|
|
For more information, see:
|
|
|
|
Worlds in Collision
|
|
Immanuel Velikovsky
|
|
|
|
Earth in Upheaval
|
|
Immanuel Velikovsky
|
|
|
|
Velikovsky Reconsidered
|
|
The Editors of Pensee
|
|
(has a lot of his papers in it, along with other papers pro-V.)
|
|
|
|
Scientists Confront Velikovsky
|
|
Donald Goldsmith
|
|
|
|
Beyond Velikovsky: The History of a Public Controversy
|
|
Henry H. Bauer
|
|
|
|
Broca's Brain
|
|
Carl Sagan
|
|
|
|
Jim Meritt <jwm@stdb.jhuapl.edu> has posted a long article on
|
|
talk.origins which systematically demolishes Velikovsky's ideas. I
|
|
don't know if it is archived anywhere. This section attempts to
|
|
summarise it. Most discussion of Velikovsky occurs on talk.origins.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fire-walking
|
|
============
|
|
|
|
WARNING: Whatever the truth about firewalking may be, it is a
|
|
potentially dangerous activity. Do not attempt it without
|
|
expert guidance.
|
|
|
|
[Please could one of the firewalkers on the net contribute a paragraph
|
|
or two for this section. PAJ]
|
|
|
|
6.1: Is fire-walking possible?
|
|
------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Yes. It is possible to walk on a bed of burning wood without being
|
|
hurt.
|
|
|
|
6.2: Can science explain fire-walking?
|
|
--------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
There are a number of theories which have been put forward to explain
|
|
firewalking. Any or all may be the explanation for a particular
|
|
event.
|
|
|
|
o The dry wood coals used by firewalkers conduct heat very poorly.
|
|
The coal itself may be very hot but it will not transfer that heat
|
|
to something touching it.
|
|
|
|
o The coals are a very uneven surface, and the actual surface area of
|
|
foot touching the coals is very small. Hence the conduction of heat
|
|
is even slower.
|
|
|
|
o Wood coals have a very low heat capacity, so although they are very
|
|
hot there is actually not much heat energy to be transferred to the
|
|
foot.
|
|
|
|
o Firewalkers do not spend very much time on the coals, and they keep
|
|
moving. Jan Willem Nienhuys <wsadjw@urc.tue.nl> adds that about 1
|
|
second total contact time per foot seems on the safe side.
|
|
|
|
o Blood is a good conductor of heat. What heat does get through is
|
|
quickly conducted away from the soles of the feet.
|
|
|
|
o The "Leidenfrost" effect may play a part. This occurs when a cold,
|
|
wet object (like a foot) touches a hot, dry object (like a burning
|
|
coal). The water vaporises, creating a barrier of steam between the
|
|
hot and cold objects. Hence the two objects do not actually touch
|
|
and evaporation from the cold object is much slower than might
|
|
otherwise be expected. Since steam is a relatively poor conductor
|
|
of heat the foot does not get burned. Jearl Walker, of Scientific
|
|
American's "The Amateur Scientist" column, explains the Leidenfrost
|
|
effect in the August 1977 issue; he walked across coals unharmed and
|
|
attributes this to the Leidenfrost effect. Other scientists believe
|
|
that the Leidenfrost effect is unimportant in firewalking.
|
|
|
|
Some firewalkers put forward mystical explanations of why firewalking
|
|
is possible. A few skeptics have challenged these firewalkers to
|
|
stand on hot metal plates instead of coals. Others have pointed out
|
|
that making such a challenge in the belief that the firewalker would
|
|
be seriously hurt is of dubious morality.
|
|
|
|
New Age
|
|
=======
|
|
|
|
7.1: What do New Agers believe?
|
|
-------------------------------
|
|
|
|
An awful lot, it would seem. New Age seems to be a sort of
|
|
"roll-your-own" religion. Some of the more common threads include:
|
|
|
|
o Divination, especially Tarot, I-Ching, and Western and Chinese
|
|
Astrology.
|
|
|
|
o Green politics, especially the more extreme "deep green" movements.
|
|
|
|
o Flying saucers.
|
|
|
|
o "Alternative" health (see above).
|
|
|
|
o Vegetarianism.
|
|
|
|
o Pacifism.
|
|
|
|
o Conspiracy theories to explain why the rest of the world does not
|
|
follow the same beliefs.
|
|
|
|
o Rejection of science and logic as tools for understanding the
|
|
universe. A reliance on feelings and intuition as guides to action.
|
|
|
|
o Pseudo-scientific jargon. New Agers talk about "rebalancing energy
|
|
fields" and "vibrational frequencies". These sound vaguely
|
|
scientific but in fact have no meaning at all.
|
|
|
|
o Eastern religions, especially "cult" religions. Mainstream eastern
|
|
religions such as Hinduism and Sihkism don't seem to attract New Age
|
|
believers. Most New Agers are actively against organised
|
|
Christianity, but some favour heretical variants such as Gnosticism.
|
|
|
|
Not all of these are bad just because New Age people follow them, but
|
|
the rejection of logical argument as a basis for belief and action
|
|
often leads to bizarre beliefs and futile actions. A recent example
|
|
was the vandalism of a GPS satellite while it was waiting to be
|
|
launched. The vandals claimed that GPS was part of a nuclear
|
|
first-strike system. In fact ICBMs use inertial guidance instead of
|
|
GPS, and have done for decades.
|
|
|
|
[Would any New Agers out there like to try summarising their beliefs
|
|
in a few paragraphs for this section? PAJ]
|
|
|
|
7.2: What is the Gaia hypothesis?
|
|
---------------------------------
|
|
|
|
There are several versions:
|
|
|
|
Religious: The planet (or the ecosphere) is aware, or at least alive,
|
|
and tries to preserve itself.
|
|
|
|
Strong: The planet/ecosphere reacts to preserve a homeostasis; if, for
|
|
example, global warming raises the temperature then various
|
|
changes in the planet's biota will occur, which will (in some
|
|
period of time) lower the temperature.
|
|
|
|
Weak: Life affects the conditions of life.
|
|
|
|
No scientist would disagree with the weak version given here; at the
|
|
other extreme, the "religious" version is not science (unless we can
|
|
find signs of that awareness).
|
|
|
|
Not only can we look at the ozone hole, global warming, or human
|
|
pollution, but the presence of oxygen in the atmosphere is also due to
|
|
the presence of life.
|
|
|
|
The strong hypothesis is very much a matter of debate. Most
|
|
scientists don't believe it, some don't think it's science, but others
|
|
feel they have good evidence. Some point to Le Chatelier's principle
|
|
(a system in equilibrium, when disturbed, reacts to as to tend to
|
|
restore the original equilibrium). However the ice ages suggest that
|
|
the Earth is not in long-term equilibrium.
|
|
|
|
For a range of interesting perspectives on the Gaia hypothesis, see
|
|
the SF novel "Earth" by David Brin.
|
|
|
|
Was Nostradamus a prophet?
|
|
--------------------------
|
|
|
|
No. His supporters are very good at predicting events after the fact,
|
|
often relying on doubtful translations of the original French to
|
|
bolster their case. But they have had absolutely no success at
|
|
predicting the future. Up until a few years ago most Nostradamus
|
|
books were predicting a nuclear war in the next few years.
|
|
|
|
The prophecies are very general, with lots of symbolism. It is very
|
|
easy to find connections between these symbols and almost anything
|
|
else, particularly if you allow multi-lingual puns and rhymes.
|
|
|
|
A good general reference on Nostradamus is:
|
|
|
|
The Mask of Nostradamus
|
|
James Randi
|
|
Charles Scribner's Sons
|
|
ISBN 0-684-19056-7
|
|
BF1815.N8R35 1990
|
|
|
|
7.4: Does astrology work?
|
|
-------------------------
|
|
|
|
No. A number of studies have been done which have failed to find any
|
|
predictive power in astrology. Psychologists have also done studies
|
|
showing that people will agree with almost any statement made about
|
|
them provided that it is a mild compliment.
|
|
|
|
A good report about research into astrology is:
|
|
Carlson, Shawn. (1985) "A double-blind test of astrology",
|
|
Nature, 318 (Dec. 5), 419-425.
|
|
|
|
7.4.1: Could astrology work by gravity?
|
|
---------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Some people argue that we are affected by the gravity of the planets
|
|
(just as tides are caused by the gravity of the Moon and Sun), and
|
|
that this is the connection between the motion of the planets and
|
|
mundane events on Earth.
|
|
|
|
Leaving aside the fact that astrology doesn't work (see above),
|
|
gravity is simply too weak to do this. Gravitational force on a mass
|
|
(such as a human being) decreases with the square of the distance to
|
|
the other mass. But the Earth is affected just as strongly by the
|
|
other mass, and accelerates slightly towards it. So the net effect on
|
|
us is nil. What is important is the difference in gravity between the
|
|
two sides of the mass. This decreases with the *third* power of the
|
|
distance (i.e. very fast) but increases with the distance between the
|
|
near and far sides. Hence the Moon and Sun cause tides because the
|
|
Earth is very large. But the difference in gravity between one end of
|
|
a human and the other is absolutely miniscule.
|
|
|
|
Also, if this were the mechanism behind astrology then the most
|
|
significant thing in astrology would be the position of the Moon, with
|
|
the time of day coming second (as it is for tides). The position of
|
|
the planets would be completely irrelevant because they are so much
|
|
further away than the Moon and so much smaller than the Sun.
|
|
|
|
7.4.2: What is the `Mars Effect'?
|
|
---------------------------------
|
|
|
|
French scientist Michael Gauquelin has discovered an apparent
|
|
correlation between the position of some planets at the time of birth
|
|
and the career followed as an adult. The strongest correlation is
|
|
between the time when Mars rises on the day of birth and athletic
|
|
prowess. However:
|
|
|
|
o The Effect seems to come and go depending on exactly what the sample
|
|
population is. Most of the controversy seems to revolve around who
|
|
did what to which sample populations.
|
|
|
|
o `Mundane' mechanisms for the Mars Effect correlations have been
|
|
proposed which invoke the age grouping of school athletic
|
|
activities.
|
|
|
|
o Nothing found by Gaugelin bears any resemblance to classical
|
|
astrology, so claims that Gaugelin has somehow "validated" astrology
|
|
are bogus.
|
|
|
|
7.5: What is Kirlian Photography?
|
|
---------------------------------
|
|
|
|
[Information from a posting by Dave Palmer <dpalmer@csulb.edu>]
|
|
|
|
The technique involves applying a high-frequency, high-voltage
|
|
electrical source (such as from a Tesla coil) to a subject. The source
|
|
is also very low-current, so the subject does not get electrocuted
|
|
(it's the current in electricity that does the harm, not the voltage).
|
|
When this is done, an "aura" of lightning-like electrical discharges
|
|
forms around the subject. This field is visible to the naked eye (in
|
|
a dark room, anyway), and may be photographed. Adherents of Kirlian
|
|
photography claim that this field is some sort of "life energy" which
|
|
may indicate things about the subject, such as health, psychic
|
|
ability, and so forth. They claim that Kirlian photography sometimes
|
|
shows the "phantom effect." That is, if a limb is amputated from the
|
|
subject (or, less gruesomely, if a piece is torn off a leaf), that the
|
|
field will still show the missing piece for a time, because its "life
|
|
energy" is still there.
|
|
|
|
There is no truth to the claims that it shows any sort of "aura" or
|
|
"life energy." It is merely a coronal discharge, complete with ozone
|
|
production. The most damaging argument against the "life energy" claim
|
|
is that Kirlian photography works on ANY subject that conducts
|
|
electricity, even completely lifeless metal, or synthetic sponges
|
|
soaked in salt water.
|
|
|
|
The field produced jumps around quite a bit. Because the shape of the
|
|
field changes, it can occasionally appear to outline non-existent
|
|
areas of the subject, hence the phantom effect. Dave Palmer reports
|
|
producing the phantom effect with tin foil about as often with leaves.
|
|
Far more often, he got false phantom effects, that is, pictures of
|
|
pieces of the subject that had never existed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Strange Machines: Free Energy and Anti-Gravity
|
|
==============================================
|
|
|
|
8.1: Why don't electrical perpetual motion machines work?
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Electrical perpetual motion machinists usually present a machine that
|
|
causes a small battery to generate a huge amount of power. The most
|
|
common problem here is that the "huge amount of power" was incorrectly
|
|
measured. AC power measurements are tricky; you can't just multiply
|
|
the voltage and current, because they may be out of phase. Thus,
|
|
measuring 10 Volts and 10 Amps could indicate anything from 0 to 100
|
|
Watts, depending on the power factor. In addition, most AC meters
|
|
expect a sinusoidal wave; if they are given some other wave they may
|
|
be totally wrong. A simple argument against these machines is; "If
|
|
they can provide so much energy, why do they need the battery to keep
|
|
going?"
|
|
|
|
8.2: Why don't mechanical perpetual motion machines work?
|
|
---------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Mechanical perpetual motion machines depend on rising and descending
|
|
weights. The problem is that the amount of energy that you get out of
|
|
a descending weight is exactly the same amount that it took to raise
|
|
the weight in the first place: gravity is said to be a "conservative"
|
|
force. So no matter what the weights do, you can't get energy out.
|
|
|
|
8.3: Why don't magnetic perpetual motion machines work?
|
|
-------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Magnetic motors have a clever arrangement of magnets which keeps the
|
|
motor rotating forever. Not surprisingly, whenever someone tries to
|
|
build one, the motor rotates for a while and then stops -- this is
|
|
usually attributed to the magnets "wearing out". These motors usually
|
|
rely on using magnets as low-friction bearings, meaning the "motor"
|
|
can coast for a long time, but it doesn't supply any power. Magnetism
|
|
is like gravity; you can store potential energy and get it back, but
|
|
you can't get more energy no matter what you try.
|
|
|
|
8.4: Magnets can levitate. Where is the energy from?
|
|
-----------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Levitating magnets do not require energy, any more than something
|
|
resting on a table requires energy. Energy is the capacity for doing
|
|
work. Work can be measured by force times distance. Although the
|
|
magnets are exerting a force the levitated object is stationary, so
|
|
the magnets aren't supplying any energy.
|
|
|
|
8.5: But its been patented!
|
|
---------------------------
|
|
|
|
So what? Patent offices will not grant a patent on a "perpetual
|
|
motion machine" (some just require a working model) but if you call it
|
|
a "vacuum energy device" and claim that it gets its energy from some
|
|
previously unknown source then you can probably get a patent. Patent
|
|
offices are there to judge whether something has been invented before,
|
|
not whether it will work. The ban on devices labelled "perpetual
|
|
motion" is a special case because the patent officers dislike being
|
|
cited as some sort of approval by con-men.
|
|
|
|
8.6: The oil companies are conspiring to suppress my invention
|
|
--------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
This is a conspiracy theory. See the entry on these in section 0.
|
|
|
|
In most of the US the utility companies are *required by law* to buy
|
|
your excess electricity if you produce your own. If you've got an
|
|
energy machine, build it in your basement, phase match it to the line,
|
|
and enjoy.
|
|
|
|
8.7: My machine gets its free energy from <X>
|
|
---------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
A number of machines have been proposed which are not "perpetual
|
|
motion" machines in the sense of violating the law of conservation of
|
|
energy. Mostly these are based on bogus science. One inventor claims
|
|
that atoms of copper wire are being converted to energy in accordance
|
|
with Einstein's "e=mc^2". However he fails to explain what causes
|
|
this transformation and how this energy is converted into electrical
|
|
energy rather than gamma rays or heat.
|
|
|
|
Occasionally one sees a machine which could work in theory but would
|
|
produce very tiny amounts of energy. For instance, one can set up a
|
|
gyroscope which always points in one direction (this is how the
|
|
gyrocompass in an aircraft works). The earth will rotate underneath
|
|
this once every day (to an observer standing on the Earth it looks
|
|
like the gyro is rotating). So you could attach gears and a generator
|
|
to the gyroscope and use this rotation to get electricity. The
|
|
4,320,000:1 gearing required is left as an exercise for the student,
|
|
as is naming the source of the energy it would generate.
|
|
|
|
8.8: Can gyroscopes neutralise gravity?
|
|
---------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Gyroscopes (or gyros) are a favorite of "lift" machine inventors
|
|
because many people have come across them and they behave rather
|
|
oddly. However there is nothing all that mysterious about the
|
|
behaviour of gyros. You can use Newtonian physics to explain them.
|
|
Briefly, if you imagine a bit of metal on the edge of a spinning gyro,
|
|
then to turn the gyro you have to stop the bit of metal moving in its
|
|
current direction and start it moving in another direction. To do
|
|
this when it is moving fast you have to push it rather hard. Nothing
|
|
about this makes the thing get any lighter (in fact to be pedantic,
|
|
the gyro gets very slightly heavier when it spins, in accordance with
|
|
Einstein's theory of relativity.)
|
|
|
|
8.9: My prototype gets lighter when I turn it on
|
|
------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Weighing something which is vibrating on ordinary scales is a sure way
|
|
of getting a wrong answer. The vibration from the machine combines
|
|
with "stiction" in the scales to give a false reading. As a result
|
|
the weight reductions reported for such machines are always close to
|
|
the limits of accuracy of the scales used.
|
|
|
|
AIDS
|
|
====
|
|
|
|
9.1: What about these theories on AIDS?
|
|
---------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
There are two AIDS theories that often appear in sci.skeptic. The
|
|
first is Strecker's theory that the CIA invented HIV by genetic
|
|
engineering; the second is Duesberg's theory that HIV has nothing to
|
|
do with AIDS.
|
|
|
|
9.1.1: The Mainstream Theory
|
|
----------------------------
|
|
|
|
The generally accepted theory is that AIDS is caused by the Human
|
|
Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV). There are two different versions of
|
|
HIV: HIV-1 and HIV-2. These viruses are believed, on the basis of
|
|
their genetic sequences, to have evolved from the Simian
|
|
Immunodeficiency Virus (SIV), with HIV-2 being much more similar to
|
|
SIV. Several years after the initial HIV infection, the immune system
|
|
is weakened to the point where opportunistic infections occur,
|
|
resulting in the syndrome of AIDS. A good reference for more
|
|
information on the "mainstream" view of AIDS is:
|
|
|
|
The Science of AIDS : readings from Scientific American magazine.
|
|
New York : W.H. Freeman, c1989.
|
|
|
|
More recently, it has been proposed that AIDS is actually an
|
|
auto-immune disease (where the body's defences attack healthy cells in
|
|
error) which is triggered by HIV.
|
|
|
|
9.1.2: Strecker's CIA Theory
|
|
----------------------------
|
|
|
|
Strecker's theory is that the CIA made HIV in the 1970's by combining
|
|
bovine leukemia virus (BLV) and sheep visna virus (OLV). The evidence for
|
|
this theory is that the government was looking at biological warfare around
|
|
then, and that there are some structural similarities between HIV and BLV
|
|
and visna. The evidence against this theory is:
|
|
|
|
a: HIV has been found in preserved blood samples from the 1950's.
|
|
[Anyone have a reference for this?]
|
|
b: We didn't have the biotechnology back then for the necessary gene
|
|
splicing. (But maybe the CIA has secret advanced technology?)
|
|
c: The genetic sequences for HIV, SIV, BLV, and OLV are freely
|
|
available (e.g. from genbank). You can look at them and compare
|
|
them yourself. The HIV sequence is totally different from BLV and
|
|
OLV, but is fairly similar to SIV, just as the scientists say.
|
|
|
|
One school of thought holds that the "AIDS was a U.S. biological
|
|
warfare experiment" myth was extensively spread as part of a
|
|
dezinformatsiya campaign by Department V of the Soviet KGB (their
|
|
`active measures' group). They may not have invented the premise
|
|
(Soviet disinformation doctrine favored legends originated by third
|
|
parties), but they added a number of signature details such as the
|
|
name of the supposed development site (usually Fort Meade in Maryland)
|
|
which still show up in most retellings.
|
|
|
|
According to a defector who was once the KGB chief rezident in Great
|
|
Britain, the KGB promulgated this legend through controlled sources in
|
|
Europe and the Third World. The Third World version (only) included
|
|
the claim that HIV was the result of an attempt to build a "race
|
|
bomb", a plague that would kill only non-whites.
|
|
|
|
Also see the question in section 0 about Conspiracy Theories.
|
|
|
|
9.1.3: Duesberg's Risk-Group Theory
|
|
-----------------------------------
|
|
|
|
Duesberg's theory is: HIV is a harmless retrovirus that may serve as a
|
|
marker for people in AIDS high-risk groups. AIDS is not a contagious
|
|
syndrome caused by one conventional virus or microbe. AIDS is
|
|
probably caused by conventional pathogenic factors: administration of
|
|
blood transfusions or drugs, promiscuous male homosexual activity
|
|
associated with drugs, acute parasitic infections, and malnutrition.
|
|
Drugs such as AZT promote AIDS, rather than fight it. His theory is
|
|
explained in detail in "Human Immunodeficiency Virus and Acquired
|
|
Immunodeficiency Syndrome: Correlation but not Causation", Proc. Natl.
|
|
Acad. Sci. USA V86 pp.755-764, (Feb. 1989).
|
|
|
|
He claims as evidence for his theory:
|
|
|
|
a: HIV does not meet Koch's postulates for the causative agent of an
|
|
infectious disease.
|
|
b: The conversion rate from HIV infection to AIDS depends greatly on
|
|
the country and risk group membership, so HIV isn't sufficient to
|
|
cause AIDS.
|
|
c: The HIV virus is minimally active, does not seem to infect many
|
|
cells, and is suppressed by the immune system, so how could it
|
|
cause problems?
|
|
d: It takes between 2 and 15 years from HIV infection for AIDS to
|
|
occur. HIV should cause illness right away or never.
|
|
e: HIV is similar to other retroviruses that don't cause AIDS. There
|
|
seems to be nothing special about HIV that would cause AIDS.
|
|
f: AIDS patients suffer very different diseases in the US and Africa,
|
|
which suggests that the cofactors are responsible, not AIDS.
|
|
g: How could two viruses, HIV-1 and HIV-2, evolve at the same time?
|
|
It doesn't seem likely that two deadly viruses would show up
|
|
together.
|
|
|
|
Virtually the entire scientific community considers Duesberg a flake,
|
|
although he was a respected researcher before he came out with his
|
|
theory about AIDS. There is no suggestion that his theories are the
|
|
result of a political agenda or homophobia.
|
|
|
|
Some of the arguments against him are:
|
|
|
|
a: People who receive HIV tainted blood become HIV+ and come down with
|
|
AIDS. People who receive HIV-free blood don't get AIDS (unless
|
|
they get HIV somewhere else). Thus, it is the HIV, not the
|
|
transfusion, that causes AIDS.
|
|
b: The risk factors (homosexuality, drug use, transfusions, etc.) have
|
|
been around for a very long time, but AIDS doesn't show up until
|
|
HIV shows up. People who engage in homosexuality, drug use, etc.
|
|
but aren't exposed to HIV don't get AIDS. On the other hand,
|
|
people who aren't members of "risk groups" but are exposed to HIV
|
|
get AIDS. Thus, it is the HIV, not the risk factors, that causes
|
|
AIDS.
|
|
c: With a few recent exceptions, everyone with an AIDS-like immune
|
|
deficiency tests positive for HIV. Everyone with HIV apparently
|
|
gets AIDS eventually, after an average of 8 years.
|
|
d: Koch's postulates are more of historical interest than practical
|
|
use. There are many diseases that don't satisfy the postulates.
|
|
e: It is not understood exactly how HIV causes AIDS, but a lack of
|
|
understanding of the details isn't a reason to reject HIV.
|
|
f: A recent study matched up people in the same risk groups and found
|
|
those with HIV got AIDS but those without HIV didn't. The study
|
|
was titled "HIV causes AIDS".
|
|
|
|
More information can be found in published rebuttals to Duesberg, such
|
|
as in Nature V345 pp.659-660 (June 21, 1990), and in Duesberg's debate
|
|
with Blattner, Gallo, Temin, Science V241 pp.514-517 (1988).
|
|
|